HEMANT GOSWAMI Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In terms of our order dated 10.9.2013, the petitioner, appearing in person, conceded that there were only two grievances still remaining: (i) the challenge laid to the validity of the Administrator, Union Territory of Chandigarh to issue any notification under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the said Act") read with rules framed thereunder; and (ii) the action taken by Union Territory of Chandigarh for carrying out awareness programmes and other linked activities in view of the provisions of Section 26 of the said Act.

(2.) An affidavit has been filed by the Home Secretary, Union Territory of Chandigarh in pursuance to the last order. It has been averred, with reference to Section 28 of the said Act, that the competent authority has been authorised to make rules by issuance of notification under the provisions of the Act and such power includes the rules relating to fee payable. As to who is the "competent authority" is defined under Section 2(e) of the said Act which, in sub-clause (v), refers to an Administrator appointed under Section 239 of the Constitution.

(3.) A distinction is sought to be carved out between the definition of a competent authority and an appropriate Government, since the expression "appropriate Government" has been defined under Clause (a) of Section 2 of the said Act. For the Central Government or the Union Territory Administration, it is the Central Government which is the appropriate Government. The implementation of the mandate contained under Section 26 is for the appropriate Government.