The Allahabad High Court recently set aside an order passed by the Chief Information Commissioner who issued a mandatory direction for reimbursement for the money spent by a Right to Information (RTI) Act applicant on his father’s medical treatment.
A bench of Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Manish Kumar held that the order had been passed completely without jurisdiction and in ignorance of the RTI Act and the Rules.
The RTI applicant had made an application on February 22, 2007, to the Chief Information Commissioner to take stern action against one Special Secretary to the Chief Minister. The applicant had also sought reimbursement of a sum of Rs 1,30,000 as financial assistance to him.
A copy of the application was sent to the Office of the Principal Secretary, attached to the Office of the Chief Minister by the Chief Information Commissioner with a direction that some financial assistance be provided to the RTI applicant for spending some money towards the treatment of his father.
In pursuance of the same, necessary information was sent to the RTI applicant by the Office of the Public Information Officer in which it was stated that the petitioner’s earlier application for compensation had been sent to the District Magistrate, Hathras for verification.
The reply also stated that although the applicant had indicated spending Rs 1,50,000 on the treatment of his father, as per the DM’s report, he had been able to submit only bill vouchers worth Rs 21,367 related to some payments made to some private hospital.
Thereafter, the Chief Information Commissioner sought the Public Information Officer’s personal presence and on September 5, 2007, he issued a direction that payment of Rs. 21,000 against alleged vouchers produced by the RTI applicant be made.
Aggrieved by the order, the concerned Public Information Officer moved the high court. The counsel for the officer argued that the said reimbursement which the opposite parties were praying for could not be granted under the Rules and also it was completely time-barred.
He also contended that the necessary information had already been given to the RTI applicant and therefore, the matter ought to have been consigned to the records by the Chief Information Commissioner.
The counsel argued that the order for reimbursement had been passed without jurisdiction as under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, the State Information Commissioner can only receive and inquire into complaints and hear appeals against orders passed by the State Public Information Officers or impose penalties in certain cases.
No such power is conferred on the Chief Information Commissioner to pass an order as has been done in this case of making payment to the RTI applicant, he asserted.
The Court perused the impugned order and noted that no reason had been assigned at all for passing such an order by the Chief Information Commissioner.
The HC highlighted that in the impugned order, the Chief Information Commissioner had only noted that the Under Secretary of the Office of the Chief Minister was present in person and that he had vouchers of Rs. 21,000 that the opposite party no. 1 (RTI applicant) had alleged to have spent on the treatment of his father and the matter had been disposed of with a direction that the said amount should be reimbursed forthwith.
Such an order having been passed completely without jurisdiction and ignorance of the Act and the Rules is set aside, the court therefore held.
Read all the Latest India News here
Comments
0 comment