# Chandra Pal Verma v. State Information Commission, U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 9 ILRA 743
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-09-11
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 6444 of 2024
- **Bench:** Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra, Brij Raj Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/chandra-pal-verma-v-state-information-commission-u-p-anr-54685
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,
1950-Right to information Act, 2005Sections
18
&
19-The
petitioner
challenged the actions of the State
Information Commission, U.P. and the
Lucknow Development Authority under
the Right to information Act-Petitioner
filed an RTI application on nine points
from the LDA-despite favorable orders
from the First appellate authority and
the State Commission, the LDA failed to
provide the requested information-The
commission imposed penalty on the
LDA's public information officer but did
not
ensure
that
the
requested
information
was
provided-Held,
the
court
emphasized
the
distinction
between sections 18 and 19 of the RTI
Act, reiterating that section 19 provides
a complete appellate mechanism for
obtaining information-Penalties under
section
18
do
not
substitute
the
obligation
to
ensure
information
disclosure-The
State
information
Commission is obligated to uphold the
RTI
Act's
objectives,
ensuring
transparency
and
accountability
in
public authorities-The court set aside
the impugned order and remanded the
matter to the State Commission.(Para 1
to 11)

The writ petition is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

9 All. Chandra Pal Verma Vs. State Information Commission, U.P. & Anr.
743
amicus curiae, who has assisted this Court
in arriving the aforesaid judgment. The
Legal Services Authority is directed to pay
remuneration to her within two weeks from
the date of copy of the order is produced
before him in accordance with the relevant
rules.

28.
With
the
aforesaid
observations/directions, this petition is
dismissed.
----------
(2024) 9 ILRA 743
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 11.09.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.
THE HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

Writ C No. 6444 of 2024

Chandra Pal Verma ...Petitioner
Versus
State Information Commission, U.P. & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Lohitaksha Shukla, Tung Nath Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
Shikhar Anand, Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava,
Akhilesh Srivastava, Ratnesh Chandra

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,
1950-Right to information Act, 2005Sections
18
&
19-The
petitioner
challenged the actions of the State
Information Commission, U.P. and the
Lucknow Development Authority under
the Right to information Act-Petitioner
filed an RTI application on nine points
from the LDA-despite favorable orders
from the First appellate authority and
the State Commission, the LDA failed to
provide the requested information-The
commission imposed penalty on the
LDA's public information officer but did
not
ensure
that
the
requested
information
was
provided-Held,
the
court
emphasized
the
distinction
between sections 18 and 19 of the RTI
Act, reiterating that section 19 provides
a complete appellate mechanism for
obtaining information-Penalties under
section
18
do
not
substitute
the
obligation
to
ensure
information
disclosure-The
State
information
Commission is obligated to uphold the
RTI
Act's
objectives,
ensuring
transparency
and
accountability
in
public authorities-The court set aside
the impugned order and remanded the
matter to the State Commission.(Para 1
to 11)

The writ petition is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:
1. Lok Nyayarth Sanstha Thru. its Gen. Secy Vs
St. of U.P., WP No. 7523 of 2015

2. CIC & anr. Vs St. of Manipur & anr.(2011) 15
SCC 1

3. Vishwamitra Bajpai Vs. St. Info. Commn. U.P.
& ors. , Writ-C No. 301 of 2024

4. Kishan Chand Jain Vs U.O.I. (2023) SCC
Online SC 1021

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta
Chandra, J.
&
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh, J.)

1. We have heard the learned counsel
for the petitioner at length and Shri Shikhar
Anand, who appears for the Respondent
no.1- State Information Commission and
Shri Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava, who
appears on behalf of the Respondents no.2-
LDA.

2. This petition has been filed by the
petitioner for the following prayers:-
744 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"i) Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of Mandamus directing the
Respondent no.2 to provide the information
sought by the petitioner.

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of Certiorari quashing the
impugned order dated 07.02.2024 and
direct the Respondent No.2 to pay the fine
imposed on it to the petitioner.

iii) Issue any other suitable writ,
order or direction which this Hon'ble Court
may deem just, fit and proper under the
circumstances of the case."

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he
had made an application under the Right to
Information Act on 03.04.2021 to the
Public Information Officer of the Lucknow
Development Authority (LDA) in which
information was sought on Nine points.
Information that was given by the LDA
was incomplete. The petitioner approached
the First Appellate Authority who passed
an order on 03.04.2021 allowing the
Appeal
and
directing
the
Public
Information
Officer
to
provide
all
information as was requested by the
petitioner in his RTI application within 15
days of the order. However, such order was
not complied with. The petitioner was
forced to file a Second Appeal before the
Respondent
no.1
pointing
out
the
information that was not provided by the
Public Information Officer despite the
order passed by the First Appellate
Authority.
The
State
Information
Commission
repeatedly
passed
orders
directing the Respondent no.2 to furnish the
information on 31.10.2022, 05.06.2023 and
11.12.2023.
The
Respondent
no.2,
however,
refused
to
provide
such
information and also refused to appear
before
the
Respondent
no.1.
The
Respondent no.1 then proceeded to pass
impugned order dated 07.02.2024 directing
the Respondent no.2 to pay a penalty of
Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner and also
provided that such penalty shall be
deducted from the salary of the Public
Information Officer of the LDA and shall
be deposited under the relevant head
maintained for the said purpose by the
Account Section. It has been submitted by
the counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner
is
still
aggrieved
as
the
information that he had sought, was not
provided by the Respondent no.2. It is also
not
clear
whether
the
order
dated
07.02.2024
was
challenged
by
the
Respondent no.2 anywhere.

4. The Counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the Respondent no.1 did not
direct the Respondent no.2 to provide the
required information to the petitioner in the
order
passed
finally
on
07.02.2024
disposing of his Second Appeal and the
Commission has abicated its responsibility
and has instead imposed a fine which is to
be deposited with the Commission itself.

5. The counsel appearing on behalf of
the Respondent no.1 has pointed out the
judgment rendered by the Division Bench
of this Court on 20.08.2015 in Writ Petition
No.7523 (M/B) of 2015 [Lok Nyayarth
Sanstha thru. its General Secretary Vs.
State of U.P. and others], where this Court
after considering the arguments raised by
the petitioner, who was the General
Secretary of the said Lok Nyayarth Sanstha,
has noted that the grievance of the
petitioner was that non-disclosure of
information under the Act can only result in
imposition of fine on the errant Public
Information Officer and no further action is
envisaged
to
ensure
disclosure
of
information sought. The Court observed
that whether a more stringent provision
should be made, is a matter of Legislative
9 All. Chandra Pal Verma Vs. State Information Commission, U.P. & Anr.
745
Policy and the Court cannot direct that the
Provision which has been made by
Parliament should be amended or that it
should be re-framed. Whether a better
provision for compliance and for enforcing
the statutory provisions for the disclosure
of information should be made, is a matter
for the law making Body to consider.
Beyond this, it would not be appropriate or
proper for the Court to issue any direction
or issue any Mandamus.

6. We have also noticed that the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the
case
of
Chief
Information
Commissioner and Another Vs. State of
Manipur and Another reported in (2011)
15 SCC 1, where the Hon'ble Supreme
Court considered the difference between
complaint made under Section 18 and the
Second Appeal filed under Section 19 of
the Act and the relevant Paragraphs nos.32,
39, 42, 48, 49 & 51 are being quoted
hereinbelow:-

"32.
We
uphold
the
said
contention and do not find any error in the
impugned judgment of the High Court
whereby it has been held that the
Commissioner
while
entertaining
a
complaint under Section 18 of the said Act
has no jurisdiction to pass an order
providing for access to the information."
********

"39. The nature of the power
under Section 18
is
supervisory
in
character whereas the procedure under
Section 19 is an appellate procedure and a
person who is aggrieved by refusal in
receiving the information which he has
sought for can only seek redress in the
manner provided in the statute, namely, by
following the procedure under Section 19.
This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that
Section 7 read with Section 19 provides a
complete statutory mechanism to a person
who is aggrieved by refusal to give
information. Such person has to get the
information by following the aforesaid
statutory provisions. The contention of the
appellant that information can be accessed
through Section 18 is contrary to the
express provision of Section 19 of the Act."
********

"42. We are of the view that
Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two
different purposes and lay down two
different procedures and they provide two
different remedies. One cannot be a
substitute for the other."
********

"48.
Apart
from
that
the
procedure under Section 19 of the Act,
when compared to Section 18, has several
safeguards for protecting the interest of the
person
who
has
been
refused
the
information he has sought. Section 19(5),
in this connection, may be referred to.
Section 19(5) puts the onus to justify the
denial of request on the Information
Officer. Therefore, it is for the officer to
justify the denial. There is no such
safeguard in Section 18. Apart from that
the procedure under Section 19 is a timebound one but no limit is prescribed under
Section 18. So out of the two procedures,
between Section 18 and Section 19, the one
under Section 19 is more beneficial to a
person who has been denied access to
information."

"49. There is another aspect also.
The procedure under Section 19 is an
appellate procedure. A right of appeal is
always a creature of statute. A right of
appeal is a right of entering a superior
forum for invoking its aid and interposition
to correct errors of the inferior forum. It is
a very valuable right. Therefore, when the
statute confers such a right of appeal that
must be exercised by a person who is
746 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
aggrieved by reason of refusal to be
furnished with the information."
********

"51.
This
Court,
therefore,
directs the appellants to file appeals under
Section 19 of the Act in respect of two
requests by them for obtaining information
vide applications dated 9-2-2007 and 19-52007 within a period of four weeks from
today. If such an appeal is filed following
the statutory procedure by the appellants,
the same should be considered on merits by
the appellate authority without insisting on
the period of limitation."

7. We have also noticed a judgment
rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court
in
Writ-C
No.301
of
2024
[Vishwamitra
Bajpai
Vs.
State
Information
Commission,
U.P.
and
others], where also the writ petitioner had
challenged order passed in Second Appeal
by the State Information Commission
allowing the Review Application made by
the Public Information Officer and setting
aside its order of Penalty and order of
Recovery. The Court while considering the
fact of the writ petitioner filing an Appeal
under Section 19 of the RTI Act also noted
that the primary object of the State
Information Commission is to uphold the
spirit of the Act and to facilitate access to
information in a fair, transparent and
fruitful manner. It observed that the
Commission had enormous Power under
Section 18 to ensure that information
seekers are furnished information regarding
what they asked for and should not be
driven away through filibustering tactics
and while quoting the judgment rendered
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Kishan Chand Jain Vs. Union of India
reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1021, the
Court had made observations that the State
Information Commission or for that matter
any Authority under the RTI has an
obligation
to
ensure
a
culture
of
information disclosure so as to promote
transparency and accountability in the
working of every Public Authority. It
observed
that
the
State
Information
Commission had abdicated its Power and
Obligation under the RTI Act to furnish
information which was demanded by the
petitioner and to adjudicate whether the
information
that
was
supplied
was
incomplete or misleading or false. Even
while setting aside its order of imposition
of Penalty and Recovery, the State
Information Commission had the power to
issue direction to the Public Information
Officer to ensure that the information that
was demanded by the petitioner should be
given to him.

8. We have noted the judgment as
cited before this Court in the case of Lok
Nyayarth Sanstha which relates to a
grievance regarding the Powers given to
the Information Commission under Section
18 of the Act. Section 18 relates to
Complaint and in such cases no doubt the
State Information Commission can either
impose a penalty or recommend initiation
of Disciplinary Proceedings against the
errant
Public
Information
Officer.
However, insofar as Section 19 of the Act
is concerned, the observations of the
Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
in
Chief
Information Commissioner and Another Vs.
State of Manipur and Another (supra),
which we have quoted hereinabove, are
relevant.

9. The order dated 07.02.2024 is set
aside. The matter is remanded to the
Respondent
no.1-
State
Information
Commission, U.P., Lucknow, to ensure that
it may exercise all its Powers to extricate
information from the Public Information
9 All. Ram Yagya (Village Pradhan) Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
747
Officer of the LDA which the petitioner
had sought in his application.

10. Necessary orders be passed as are
required under Section 19, in view of the
observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme
Court and by this Court, in the aforecited
judgments, and the matter be tried to be
disposed of within a period of six months
from the date a certified copy of this order
is produced before the Respondent no.1.

11. The writ petition is, accordingly,
allowed.
----------
(2024) 9 ILRA 747
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 21.09.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ C No. 8140 of 2024

Ram Yagya (Village Pradhan)
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Amit Kr. Singh Bhadauriya

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article 226-U.P. Panchayat Raj Act,1947Section
95(1)(g)-The
petitioner
challenged the District Magistrate order
directing a preliminary inquiry under
section
95(1)(g)
of
the
Act,1947,
concerning
allegations
of
fraud
and
misappropriation of funds related to a
village pond-the petitioner argued that
the District Magistrate order is arbitrary
since two earlier inquiries found the
complaints baseless-Held, The court ruled
that the District Magistrate's order for a
preliminary inquiry is within legal bounds
and does not affect the petitioner's rights
at
this
stage-allegations
involving
defalcation or misappropriation of state
funds warrant investigation-Prior inquiries
by other authorities do not preclude the
District Magistrate from ordering a fresh
inquiry under section 95(1)(g) of the
Act,1947-If the inquiry finds substance in
the allegations, the petitioner will have
full opportunity to defend himself during
subsequent proceedings-Hence, the court
dismissed the petition, stating that no
interference requires.(Para 1 to 12)

The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.)

1. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Singh
Bhadauriya,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner and the Standing counsel.

2. It has been submitted by learned
counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner
is a duly elected Pradhan of Village Nidura,
Block Jaisinghpur,k District Sultanpur and
has been holding the office since 2021. The
grievance raised in the present writ petition
is with regard to repeated frivolous
complaints made against the petitioner by
one Kapil Muni. It has been submitted that
the first complaint was made against the
petitioner on 15.6.2024 which was made
on Sampurna Samadhan Divas. It is
stated that the said complaint was with
regard to a pond situated at gata
No.485/0.708 hectare which has been
made stating that the petitioner by
playing fraud has misappropriated the
fund and subsequently allegations have
been made for selling the same illegally.
Inquiry
was
conducted
by
Block
Development Officer on 31.7.2024 and
he held that he could not find any merit in
the allegations in the complaint which
could not, therefore, be verified.