TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 987
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....I Act'). 2. The impugned order indicates that the order dated 26.09.2013 passed by respondent no. 2 pursuant to an application filed by the petitioner under the RTI Act; and the order dated 21.10.2013 passed by respondent no. 4 in an appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 26.09.2013, were set aside as being void ab-initio by respondent no. 1 as an administrative head of the Income Tax Settlement Commission. 3. The principal controversy to be addressed is whether, respondent no.1 could declare by an administrative order, the orders passed by respondent nos. 2 & 4 as being void ab-initio. 4. Briefly stated, the relevant facts necessary for considering the controversy in the present petition are as under:- 4.1 The petit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e ab initio void and are annulled. The RTI application will be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and notification by the Chairman, ITSC, New Delhi order No.C-26016/1/05/SCRTI/ 1178 dated 29/31-07-2013 by the Administrative Officer, (CPIO) ITSC, Principal Bench, New Delhi at the earliest." 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the orders passed by the CPIO (i.e. respondent no 2) and the First Appellate Authority (i.e. respondent no. 4) could not be denied or declared as void by an administrative order. This is disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents who submits that the Chairman, Income Tax Settlement Commission, being the overall administrative head of the d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h of imagination a higher authority can interfere with the independence which is the basic feature of any statutory scheme involving adjudicatory process." 8. It is well settled that even if an order is a nullity, it would continue to be effective unless set aside by a competent body or Court. In this case respondent no. 1 is not authorised under the RTI Act to interfere with the orders passed under the RTI Act. The Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors v. Gurdev Singh: (1991) 4 SCC 1 held as under: "7. ... If an Act is void or ultra vires it is enough for the court to declare it so and it collapses automatically. It need not be set aside. The aggrieved party can simply seek a declaration that it is void and not binding upon him. A dec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hts, or for some other legal reason. In any such case the 'void' order remains effective and is, in reality, valid. It follows that an order may be void for one purpose and valid for another; and that it may be void against one person but valid against another." 10. It will be clear from these principles, the party aggrieved by the invalidity of the order has to approach the court for relief of declaration that the order against him is inoperative and not binding upon him. He must approach the court within the prescribed period of limitation. If the statutory time limit expires the court cannot give the declaration sought for." 9. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents further submits that the present writ petition ought not to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IO in relation to the Principal Bench of the Income Tax Settlement Commission. In the circumstances, the petitioner has alleged that, in fact, respondent no.2 and respondent no.4 were the respective CPIO and the First Appellate Authority of the concerned public authority. According to the petitioner, the administrative order of respondent no.1 referred to in the impugned order was conjured up only to overreach the order dated 21.10.2013 passed by the First Appellate Authority as the same was found to be inconvenient. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further pointed that the copy of the administrative order has also not been produced by the respondents. In addition, the petitioner has alleged that the impugned order is antedated as....