Administrative head can't nullify RTI orders. Follow legal channels for relief. Orders remain effective until set aside.

The court held that the administrative head lacked authority to nullify orders under the RTI Act, emphasizing the need to follow proper legal channels for relief. It highlighted the importance of maintaining the hierarchy of forums for adjudication and stated that orders, even if null, remain effective until set aside by a competent body or court. The impugned order denying information was set aside, allowing respondents to challenge earlier decisions through appropriate legal avenues, while directing the petitioner to seek redressal through the Central Information Commission under Section 18 of the RTI Act for alleged administrative misconduct.

---

---

Issues:
Impugning an order denying information under the RTI Act - Administrative declaration of orders as void ab-initio - Authority to nullify orders through administrative order.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged an order denying information under the RTI Act issued by the Central Public Information Officer & Administrative Officer of the Income Tax Settlement Commission. The impugned order nullified previous orders passed by other officers, raising the issue of whether an administrative head could declare orders void ab-initio.

2. The key facts included the petitioner's RTI application, responses from different officers, and subsequent administrative orders annulling the earlier decisions. The petitioner argued that administrative orders cannot override statutory powers exercised under the RTI Act, emphasizing the need for proper appeal procedures.

3. The court referenced the principle that higher authorities cannot interfere with the independence of statutory schemes, citing the Supreme Court's stance on maintaining the hierarchy of forums for adjudication. It highlighted that even if an order is a nullity, it remains effective until set aside by a competent body or court.

4. The judgment emphasized that the administrative head lacked the authority to interfere with orders passed under the RTI Act, stressing the importance of seeking relief through the correct legal channels. It also noted the requirement for public authorities to publish details of public information officers as per the RTI Act.

5. While acknowledging the petitioner's allegations of administrative misconduct, the court refrained from delving into those issues, suggesting that the petitioner approach the Central Information Commission under Section 18 of the RTI Act for redressal. The impugned order was set aside, allowing the respondents to challenge the earlier orders through proper legal avenues.

---