Broad RTI appellate powers must still respect third-party hearing rights and statutory procedure before directing disclosure steps.

Appellate powers under the Right to Information Act are broad enough to require a public authority to use powers available under other laws to procure and forward information, so such a direction is not inherently without jurisdiction. However, where the direction affects third-party rights, the order must follow the statutory third-party procedure and give an effective opportunity of hearing. An order passed without such hearing and procedural compliance is unsustainable and may be quashed for breach of natural justice, with the matter remitted for fresh consideration.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellate authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005 could direct the Education Officer to use powers under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 to procure information from the petitioners and forward it to the applicant; (ii) Whether the impugned order could stand when passed without giving the petitioners an effective opportunity of hearing and without following the third-party procedure.

Issue (i): Whether the appellate authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005 could direct the Education Officer to use powers under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 to procure information from the petitioners and forward it to the applicant.

Analysis: The appellate powers under Section 19(8)(a) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 are wide and are intended to secure compliance with the Act. The statutory scheme, reinforced by Section 22, permits directions necessary to make the right effective, including requiring a public authority to take steps available to it under other laws for obtaining information. A direction to the Education Officer to use powers available under the 1977 Act was therefore not, by itself, beyond jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The direction was not held to be inherently without jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned order could stand when passed without giving the petitioners an effective opportunity of hearing and without following the third-party procedure.

Analysis: The petitioners were not given a proper opportunity of hearing before the impugned direction was issued. The record also raised issues concerning information sought from or relating to a third party, for which the statutory procedure under Section 11 of the Act was relevant. Since the order affected the petitioners' rights and had been passed without hearing them, it could not be sustained in its present form.

Conclusion: The impugned order was unsustainable for breach of natural justice and the matter required fresh consideration.

Final Conclusion: The order of the State Information Commissioner was quashed and the appeal was restored for fresh hearing and decision after giving the petitioners an opportunity to be heard.

Ratio Decidendi: The appellate authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005 has wide powers to secure compliance with the Act, but any order affecting a third party must be preceded by a fair opportunity of hearing and adherence to the statutory procedure where applicable.

---