BELMA MAWRIE AND ORS. Vs. CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER (C.I.C.) MEGHALAYA STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. A.K. Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Pathania, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. HS Thangkhiew, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N. Mozika, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 in person.

(2.) THE respondent No. 2 Shri B. Bhattacharjee (Advocate) filed an application dated 07.08.2014 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short 'the RTI Act, 2005') to the Public Information Officer (for short 'PIO') i.e. writ petitioner No. 2 for furnishing the information with regard to one Shri Aman Sinha, who had been conferred the status of designated Senior vide Memo No. HCM II/168/2014/2018 dated Shillong, the 31st July, 2014 by the High Court of Meghalaya. The said application dated 07.08.2014 was rejected by the PIO i.e. writ petitioner No. 2 vide order dated 02.09.2014 and also the Appeal No. 1 of 2014 to the appellate authority i.e. writ petitioner No. 1 against the said order dated 02.09.2014 had been dismissed vide order dated 13.11.2014. The said order dated 02.09.2014 for dismissing the said application filed by the respondent No. 2 and also the order dated 13.11.2014 for dismissing the Appeal No. 1 of 2014 were passed on only two reasons that: (i) the applicant/respondent No. 2 is not the "affected person" and; (ii) the information asked for by the applicant/respondent No. 2 cannot be disclosed under Rule 5 of the High Court of Meghalaya (Right to Information) Rules, 2013 (for short 'the High Court of Meghalaya (RTI) Rules, 2013'). The "affected person" is mentioned in Rule 4 of the High Court of Meghalaya (RTI) Rules, 2013. The appeal against the order of the writ petitioner No. 1 dated 13.11.2014 being Appeal No. 2 of 2015 is pending before the State Chief Information Commissioner i.e. respondent No. 1. A copy of the memo of Appeal No. 2 of 2015 is also placed before this Court by the respondent No. 2 and the same has been placed in the file of this writ petition. The questions fall for consideration in the present writ petition are: -

(3.) THE Chief Justice of the High Court of Meghalaya is the "competent authority" in the case of High Court of Meghalaya under Section 2(e)(iii) of the RTI Act, 2005. Request for information under the RTI Act, 2005 is to be made to whom and how to be made are provided under Section 6 of the RTI Act, 2005. Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005 provides the information exempted from disclosure. The powers and functions of the Information Commission are more -fully provided under Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005 and also the appellate powers and functions of the State Information Commission are also provided under Section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005. Under Section 12 of the RTI Act, 2005, the Central Information Commission is constituted. Under Section 15 of the RTI Act, 2005, the State Information Commission is constituted. Under Section 28 of the RTI Act, 2005, the competent authority may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules to carry out the provisions of this Act. For easy reference, Sections 2(e)(iii), 3, 6, 8, 12, 15, 18, 19 & 28 of the RTI Act, 2005 are quoted hereunder: -