Bombay HC Directs CIC To Take Appropriate Steps For Formulating Reasonable Time Limit For Early Disposal Of Second Appeals & Complaints
|The Bombay High Court directed the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) to take appropriate steps to formulate some reasonable time limit for the early disposal of the second appeals and complaints.
The Court’s order came on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed against the Maharashtra State Information Commission.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Arif S. Doctor ordered, “We, thus, direct that a copy of this order shall be placed before the Chief Information Commissioner, who shall take appropriate steps to formulate some reasonable time limit and prescribe the same for early disposal of the second appeals and complaints. On the next date of listing learned counsel representing the State Information Commission shall apprise the Court of the steps which might be taken by the Commission for ensuring the compliance of this order.”
Advocate Sunil K. Ahya represented the petitioners while Advocate Seema Chopda and Additional Government Pleader Jyoti Chavan represented the respondents.
The PIL was concerned with more efficient functioning of the State Information Commission and the submission made by the counsel for petitioners primarily was that the disposal of second appeals, being preferred before the Commission, takes much time, which ultimately results in frustrating the information seeker. It was thus prayed that the direction may be issued to the respondent-Commission to chalk out a road-map so that the second appeals and complaints being preferred before the Commission are disposed of within 45 (forty-five) days.
The counsel representing the Commission, however, submitted that in the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), though time, within which the complaint or first appeal is to be disposed of, is prescribed, however, the legislature has not prescribed any time limit for the Information Commission to dispose of the complaints/second appeals. It was also submitted that all efforts have been made at the end of the Commission to ensure timely disposal of the matters being brought before the Commission.
The High Court after considering the submissions of the counsel observed, “There cannot be two views about efficient functioning of the Commission and desirability of early disposal of the second appeals and the complaints being brought before it. It is also true that the statutory framework, within which the information is being sought and provided by the Commission under the RTI Act, does not contain any prescription, however, there cannot be any doubt that even in absence of any such statutory prescription, the Information Commission is expected to dispose of the matters coming before it within some reasonable time.”
The Court further relied upon the judgment passed by the Calcutta High Court in the case of Akhil Kumar Roy v. the West Bengal Information Commission and Ors. (Writ Petition No.11933 of 2010), in which it was held that the second appellate authority, i.e., the Commission should decide the second appeals within 45 days from the date of filing.
“Learned Additional Government Pleader, on the basis of instructions, states that all the vacancies in the State Information Commission, including the office of the Chief Information Commissioner, shall be filled in by the first week of February 2024. We, thus, hope and trust that the vacancies in the Commission shall be filled in accordingly by the first week of February 2024”, said the Court.
The Court also said that once the Commission starts functioning with full strength, including the office of the CIC, it would be appropriate for the Commission to evolve and work out certain norms for more efficient and better functioning of the Commission, which will include chalking out some reasonable time limit, within which complaints and second appeals being brought before it, are to be decided.
Accordingly, the High Court listed the case for further hearing on March 6, 2024.
Cause Title- Shailesh Gandhi & Ors. v. Maharashtra State Information Commission & Ors.