Times of India: Vijayawada: Wednesday, 07 June 2023
The AP high court and Central Information Commission (CIC) have become parties to an interesting litigation which has raised questions about the jurisdiction of the latter.
The administrative side of the high court recently filed a petition challenging the CIC’s orders remanding back an appeal that was dismissed as infructuous by the HC registrar general. Apart from directing the registrar general to pass a reasoned order, the CIC also directed the registrar judicial to file a compliance report of its order besides issuing a show cause notice asking why penalty should not be imposed for failing to give information and vitiating the proceedings before the CIC.
The issue originated from an application submitted by one PV Teja, an advocate from Vijayawada, who appeared for screening test for the post of junior civil judge. According to him, he was not selected for the written test in SC category despite securing more marks than some of the BC candidates. He sought information on the selection criteria, question papers, and other information pertaining to the recruitment process.
The HC registrar judicial, who is also the public information officer (PIO), sent him a reply stating that some of his questions were hypothetical and do not come under the definition of information as provided in the RTI Act. Teja went for first appeal before the registrar general even before he received information from the PIO on the ground that he did not get information within the stipulated time which is deemed refusal. As the information was given by the time hearing on the first appeal was held, the registrar general dismissed the application as infructuous.
Challenging the proceedings of the registrar general, Teja filed a second appeal before the CIC, which found fault with the reply given by the PIO and observed that some of the questions to which information was rejected were not hypothetical. The CIC also found fault with the registrar general for not rectifying the lacuna in the information given by the PIO and remanded the second appeal back to the registrar general and directed to pass a reasoned speaking order.
Aggrieved by the order, the registrar general and judicial registrar filed a petition challenging the jurisdiction of the CIC in passing such orders. Contending that the CIC did not appreciate the fact that the first appeal was not filed on merits, they argued that the second appeal by the applicant is beyond the jurisdiction of the CIC and without any application of mind, the latter passed an order which is untenable in law. As the CIC directed to file a compliance report, the petitioners sought an interim stay on the orders.
Considering the arguments, a division bench of the high court comprising justices B Krishna Mohan and G Ramakrishna Prasad suspended the orders of the CIC till further orders and issued notices to the respondents to file counter affidavits. Further hearing of the matter has been posted to July 6.
The AP high court and Central Information Commission (CIC) have become parties to an interesting litigation which has raised questions about the jurisdiction of the latter.
The administrative side of the high court recently filed a petition challenging the CIC’s orders remanding back an appeal that was dismissed as infructuous by the HC registrar general. Apart from directing the registrar general to pass a reasoned order, the CIC also directed the registrar judicial to file a compliance report of its order besides issuing a show cause notice asking why penalty should not be imposed for failing to give information and vitiating the proceedings before the CIC.
The issue originated from an application submitted by one PV Teja, an advocate from Vijayawada, who appeared for screening test for the post of junior civil judge. According to him, he was not selected for the written test in SC category despite securing more marks than some of the BC candidates. He sought information on the selection criteria, question papers, and other information pertaining to the recruitment process.
The HC registrar judicial, who is also the public information officer (PIO), sent him a reply stating that some of his questions were hypothetical and do not come under the definition of information as provided in the RTI Act. Teja went for first appeal before the registrar general even before he received information from the PIO on the ground that he did not get information within the stipulated time which is deemed refusal. As the information was given by the time hearing on the first appeal was held, the registrar general dismissed the application as infructuous.
Challenging the proceedings of the registrar general, Teja filed a second appeal before the CIC, which found fault with the reply given by the PIO and observed that some of the questions to which information was rejected were not hypothetical. The CIC also found fault with the registrar general for not rectifying the lacuna in the information given by the PIO and remanded the second appeal back to the registrar general and directed to pass a reasoned speaking order.
Aggrieved by the order, the registrar general and judicial registrar filed a petition challenging the jurisdiction of the CIC in passing such orders. Contending that the CIC did not appreciate the fact that the first appeal was not filed on merits, they argued that the second appeal by the applicant is beyond the jurisdiction of the CIC and without any application of mind, the latter passed an order which is untenable in law. As the CIC directed to file a compliance report, the petitioners sought an interim stay on the orders.
Considering the arguments, a division bench of the high court comprising justices B Krishna Mohan and G Ramakrishna Prasad suspended the orders of the CIC till further orders and issued notices to the respondents to file counter affidavits. Further hearing of the matter has been posted to July 6.
.JPG)
.JPG)
