Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(i) to (vi) show the mention of specific powers or steps which may be taken. Thus, this placement & arrangement reveals the legislative mandate that powers later specified in sub-clauses are not designed to restrict the wide field kept deliberately open for the appellate forums and not to encroach upon the general power to issue various types of directions under main clause. The stipulation of specific powers is without prejudice to generality of vast power conferred by S.19(8)(a) i.e. main clause. There is no reason to cut down sweep of this procedure aimed at effective implementation as it militates with its completeness within the RTI Act envisaged & achieved through overriding effect in S. 22 & bar of jurisdiction of civil court in S.23. All the steps/measures required to be adopted for achieving the purpose, object of & compliance with RTI Act, are therefore, open & permitted, and the appellate authority can issue direction to such public authority to take any of those steps as are suitable to coerce the persons having information to abide by directions issued under the RTI Act. Said steps giving teeth to it & intended at making the law effective, therefore, may include a direction to use other powers available to such public authority i.e. conferred upon it under any other law like 1977 Act. The Education Officer (Secondary) is a public authority and has acted as first appeal authority also in the present matter. Statutorily, it is associated with administration and functioning of all recognized and approved schools due to & in accordance with the provisions of 1977 Act as also Secondary School Code. It has got various powers to monitor the functioning and standard of education in terms of these statutory instruments. For that purpose it can access the records of the petitioners. Here, overriding effect given to RTI Act vide its S. 22 also assumes significance. Hence, a direction by respondent No.1 in its order dated 10th February 2012 to respondent No.2 to use any of those powers for procuring information from the petitioners cannot be viewed as excessive. The contention that what is directly prohibited has been achieved indirectly through such a direction or course of action is, therefore, misconceived and unsustainable.