TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 987X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to publish the name, designation and particulars of public information officers. Admittedly, the name and designation of respondent no.2 and no other, was published as the CPIO in relation to the Principal Bench of the Income Tax Settlement Commission. In the circumstances, the petitioner has alleged that, in fact, respondent no.2 and respondent no.4 were the respective CPIO and the First Appellate Authority of the concerned public authority. - Although the allegations made by the petitioner may warrant an enquiry, I am not inclined to examine the same in these proceedings and it would be open for the petitioner to approach the CIC under Section 18 of the RTI Act in respect of these allegations. The CIC has the necessary power to initiate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion, inter alia, with respect to disposal and pendency of matters before the Income Tax Settlement Commission. In response to this application, respondent no.2 (CPIO and Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Settlement Commission) passed an order dated 26.09.2013 furnishing certain information to the petitioner. However, by the said order certain other information as sought for was denied. The petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent no 4, who was specified as the First Appellate Authority. The said appeal was partly allowed by an order dated 21.10.2013. 4.2 The petitioner sent a letter dated 23.10.2013 to respondent no.2 seeking compliance of the order dated 21.10.2013, however, received no response thereto. Thereafter, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an administrative order in respect of any order passed by the other sub-ordinate officers. He contends that respondent nos.2 and 4 were not the designated authorities under the RTI Act with respect to the information sought by the petitioner since the information pertained to another wing of the department. 6. It is not disputed that the orders dated 26.09.2013 and 21.10.2013 were orders passed under the RTI Act and in that sense were in exercise of statutory powers. I am unable to accept that such orders passed in exercise of statutory powers could be declared as a nullity or void by an administrative order without recourse to the hierarchy of authorities as specified in the statute - the RTI Act. In the event, the respondent no.1 was o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tate of affairs and does not quash so as to produce a new state of affairs. 8. But nonetheless the impugned dismissal order has at least a de facto operation unless and until it is declared to be void or nullity by a competent body or court. In Smith v. East Elloe Rural District Council [1956 AC 736, 769 : (1956) 1 All ER 855, 871] Lord Radcliffe observed: (All ER p. 871) An order, even if not made in good faith, is still an act capable of legal consequences. It bears no brand of invalidity on its forehead. Unless the necessary proceedings are taken at law to establish the cause of invalidity and to get it quashed or otherwise upset, it will remain as effective for its ostensible purpose as the most impeccable of orders. 9. Apr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner would have an alternative remedy to approach the CIC by way of a complaint under Section 18(1) of the RTI Act. The learned counsel has specifically referred to Section 18(1)(f) of the RTI Act which reads as under:- 18. Powers and functions of Information Commissions.- (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall be the duty of the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, to receive and inquire into a complaint from any person,- xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx (f) in respect of any other matter relating to requesting or obtaining access to records under this Act. 10. Undoubtedly, the CIC would have the power to enquire into any complaint in respect of matters relating to access ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 14.02.2014, the same was received by the petitioner on 15.03.2014. 12. Although the allegations made by the petitioner may warrant an enquiry, I am not inclined to examine the same in these proceedings and it would be open for the petitioner to approach the CIC under Section 18 of the RTI Act in respect of these allegations. The CIC has the necessary power to initiate an enquiry in respect of such complaints by virtue of Section 18(2) of the RTI Act. 13. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside. However, it will also be open for the respondents to approach the CIC to assail the orders dated 26.09.2013 and 21.10.2013 passed by respondent no.2 and respondent no.4 respectively. Needless to mention that if an appeal is f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
