STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION Vs. C.V. RAJENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "When application made for information as provided under Sec. 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short "RTI Act") is rejected, either expressly or otherwise, the remedy available to the applicant is to file an appeal as provided under Sec. 19 of the RTI Act and that a further complaint under Sec. 18 to the State Information Commission is not maintainable." This is the position of law expounded by this Court in the judgment dtd. 28/10/2014 in W.A.No180 of 2010. The 1st respondent in the Writ Appeal, State Information Commission took exception to that and filed this Review Petition invoking Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

(2.) As per order dtd. 22/8/2022, service of notice on respondents No.2 to 4 was dispensed with. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent.

(3.) In the judgment sought to be reviewed, the Division Bench held that the State Information Commission acted beyond its jurisdiction by issuing Ext.P1, whereby the 1st respondent was directed to take action on complaint dtd. 17/8/2007. That complaint was submitted by the requester alleging that the information sought by him was not furnished within the stipulated time. The Commission treated it as a complaint under Sec. 18(1) of the RTI Act as could be seen from Ext.P1. The Division Bench in such circumstances held that when an application made for information as provided under sec. 6 of the RTI Act is rejected, either expressly or otherwise, the State Information Commissioner is not empowered to issue a direction under Sec. 18 of the RTI Act to furnish the information sought and the only remedy available to the requester is to file an appeal as provided under Sec. 19 of the RTI Act.