TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Procedural distinctions between Sections 18 and 19 of the RTI Act clarified by Karnataka High Court.</h1> <h3>L.C. NAGARAJ Versus KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION</h3> The High Court of Karnataka clarified the procedural distinctions between Sections 18 and 19 of the Right to Information Act, emphasizing that Section 19 ... RTI - Information in relation to Saguvali Chit registers from the year 1933-34 till the date of the application - Held that:- Central Information Commission or State Information Commission has no power under S.18 to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. Remedy for such person who has been refused information is provided under Section 19 of Act. Nature of power under S.18 is supervisory in character whereas procedure under Section 19 is appellate procedure and a person who is aggrieved by refusal in receiving information which he has sought for can only seek redress in manner provided in statute, namely, by following procedure under Section 19. It has been further held that Section 7 read with Section 19 provides complete statutory mechanism to person who is aggrieved by refusal to receive information. Such person has to get information by following aforesaid statutory provisions. Sections 18 and 19 of Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be substitute for other. In the instant case, if the Public Information Officer has failed to furnish the information within 30 days from the date of receipt of the application, the application is deemed to have been refused. In such a situation, the remedy available to the second respondent is to file an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act before the First Appellate Authority. The complaint made before the first respondent under Section 18(1) of the Act was not maintainable. Therefore, the order passed by the first respondent at Annexure-K and other subsequent orders are not valid. Writ petition allowed Issues:1. Failure to provide information under the Right to Information Act, 2005.2. Validity of the complaint filed under Section 18(1) of the Act.3. Applicability of Sections 18 and 19 of the Act in seeking redress for denied information.Analysis:The judgment by the High Court of Karnataka addressed the issue of failure to provide information under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The case involved the second respondent seeking information related to Saguvali Chit registers but facing non-compliance from the Public Information Officer. The first respondent directed the petitioner to furnish the information and imposed a penalty, leading to the second respondent filing a complaint under Section 18(1) of the Act.The Court considered the contention that the petitioner did not furnish the information within the prescribed period, leading to the complaint under Section 18(1). The judgment referenced a Supreme Court case stating that the power under Section 18 is supervisory, while Section 19 provides an appellate procedure for seeking redress in case of denied information. It emphasized that Sections 18 and 19 serve different purposes and provide distinct remedies, with Section 19 being the appropriate route for seeking information denied by the Public Information Officer.The Court concluded that if the information is not provided within 30 days, it is deemed refused, requiring the aggrieved party to appeal under Section 19(1) before the First Appellate Authority. As a result, the complaint made under Section 18(1) was deemed not maintainable, rendering the orders based on it invalid. The Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the order at Annexure-K and subsequent orders without imposing any costs.In summary, the judgment clarified the procedural distinctions between Sections 18 and 19 of the Right to Information Act, emphasizing that Section 19 provides the appropriate remedy for individuals denied information by the Public Information Officer. The ruling highlighted the need to follow the statutory provisions correctly and deemed the complaint under Section 18(1) as not valid, ultimately quashing the related orders.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
