L.C. NAGARAJ Vs. KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second respondent had made an application at Annexure-C dated 30-11-2009 before the Tahsildar, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District seeking certain information in relation to Saguvali Chit registers from the year 1933-34 till the date of the application. The Tahsildar who is also the Public Information Officer under Section 5 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short the 'Act') did not furnish the information. Therefore, the second respondent filed a complaint under Section 18(1) of the Act before the first respondent on 29-1-2010. The first respondent by his order at Annexure-K has directed the petitioner to furnish the information and also imposed penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the petitioner and cost of Rs. 2,000/- payable to the second respondent. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) The contention of the second respondent before the first respondent was that the petitioner has not furnished information in terms of the application at Annexure-C within the period prescribed. Therefore, he has lodged the complaint under Section 18(1) of the Act before the first respondent. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and Anr. v. State of Manipur and Anr., 2012 AIR(SC) 864 has held that the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission has no power under S. 18 to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. Remedy for such person who has been refused information is provided under Section 19 of Act. Nature of power under S. 18 is supervisory in character whereas procedure under Section 19 is appellate procedure and a person who is aggrieved by refusal in receiving information which he has sought for can only seek redress in manner provided in statute, namely, by following procedure under Section 19. It has been further held that Section 7 read with Section 19 provides complete statutory mechanism to person who is aggrieved by refusal to receive information. Such person has to get information by following aforesaid statutory provisions. Sections 18 and 19 of Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be substitute for other.

(3.) In the instant case, if the Public Information Officer has failed to furnish the information within 30 days from the date of receipt of the application, the application is deemed to have been refused. In such a situation, the remedy available to the second respondent is to file an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act before the First Appellate Authority. The complaint made before the first respondent under Section 18(1) of the Act was not maintainable. Therefore, the order passed by the first respondent at Annexure-K and other subsequent orders are not valid. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and it is accordingly allowed. The order at Annexure-K and all subsequent orders passed on the basis of the complaint made by the second respondent are hereby quashed. No costs.