Times
of India: Pune: Wednesday, 22 April 2015.
The Bombay
high court has directed the state chief information commissioner (CIC) not to
transfer any state information commissioner (SIC) till a further order is
issued by the court.
A high court
bench of Justices Naresh H Patil and V L Achliya passed an interim order to
this effect on April 17, while responding to a public interest litigation (PIL)
filed by Pune-based activist Vijay Kumbhar. Kumbhar has challenged the state
CIC's powers under Section 15 (4) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005,
regarding transfer and posting of SICs.
The PIL was
prompted by the transfer of SIC Ravindra Jadhav from Amravati to Pune region on
July 2, 2014, barely four months after he was appointed SIC for Amravati region
for a five-year term. Kumbhar has argued that such a transfer carried out under
Section 15 (4) of the Act is illegal, without jurisdiction and authority vested
in the state CIC. He also prayed that the court restrain Jadhav from
discharging his duties in Pune.
Section 15 of
the RTI Act provides for constitution of a State Information Commission as an
autonomous body to hear grievances and appeals arising from complaints of
violation of any provision of the Act by a public authority. In Maharashtra,
the CIC heads the commission and is assisted by SICs for seven regions, mostly
divisional commissionerates, including Pune.
The CIC and
SICs are appointed under Section 15 (3) of the Act by the governor on
recommendation by a three-member committee consisting of the chief minister,
leader of the opposition or the largest group in opposition, and a cabinet
minister nominated by the CM.
The bench
observed, "The issues raised in the PIL, including that of the overall
jurisdiction and powers of the state CIC under Section 15 (4) of the Act,
require deeper consideration in view of the provisions of the Act as well as
the facts of the matter."
"So far,
the state is not in a position to take a definite stand in respect to powers of
the state CIC or in respect provisions of the Act," the bench observed,
while granting further time to the government pleader to take instructions. The
matter has been posted for next hearing on April 27.
Lawyer Rahul
S Kadam, who appeared for Kumbhar, submitted that the issue should be looked
into in the larger public interest considering that the object and purpose of
the Act was to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every
public authority. The state CIC would, otherwise, continue to transfer SICs in
similar fashion, he submitted.
Kadam
contended that the SICs should not be allowed to work under constant pressure
that they could be transferred to another place or region by the state CIC even
when they have been appointed to serve at a specific place for a specific term.
Government
pleader A B Vagyani has submitted that the PIL is not maintainable in view of a
2004 judgment by the Supreme Court in the case of Dr B Singh v Union of India.
He, however, sought more time from the court for further instructions.
.JPG)
.JPG)
