Facts of the Case

The petitioner, R.K. Jain, filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking information relating to disposal and pendency of matters before the Income Tax Settlement Commission.

The CPIO and Joint Commissioner of Income Tax passed an order dated 26.09.2013 and furnished certain information while denying some other information sought by the petitioner. Aggrieved by partial denial of information, the petitioner filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority.

The First Appellate Authority partly allowed the appeal by an order dated 21.10.2013.

Subsequently, the petitioner sought compliance with the appellate order but received no response. Thereafter, the petitioner received an impugned order dated 14.02.2014 whereby it was stated that the Chairman of the Income Tax Settlement Commission, acting as administrative head, had declared the earlier orders passed by the CPIO and First Appellate Authority as void ab initio and annulled them.

The petitioner challenged the validity of such action before the Delhi High Court.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the Chairman of the Income Tax Settlement Commission could, by an administrative order, declare orders passed under the RTI Act as void ab initio.
  2. Whether statutory orders passed by the CPIO and First Appellate Authority could be nullified without following the appellate mechanism prescribed under law.
  3. Whether the existence of an alternative remedy before the Central Information Commission barred exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • The petitioner argued that orders passed by the CPIO and First Appellate Authority under the RTI Act were statutory orders and could not be set aside through an administrative order.
  • It was submitted that the RTI Act provides a statutory hierarchy and any challenge to such orders could only be made before competent appellate forums.
  • The petitioner further contended that the website of the Income Tax Settlement Commission itself had disclosed the concerned officer as the designated CPIO.
  • The petitioner also alleged that the administrative order appeared to have been issued only to circumvent compliance with the appellate authority’s order.

Respondent’s Arguments

  • The respondents argued that the Chairman of the Income Tax Settlement Commission, being the administrative head, possessed inherent authority over subordinate officers.
  • It was contended that the officers who passed the earlier orders were not the designated authorities competent to decide matters concerning the information requested by the petitioner.
  • The respondents further argued that the petitioner had an alternative remedy by approaching the Central Information Commission under Section 18(1)(f) of the RTI Act.

Sections Involved

Right to Information Act, 2005

  • Section 4(1)(b)(xvi) – Obligation of public authorities to publish names and particulars of Public Information Officers.
  • Section 18(1)(f) – Power of Information Commissions to inquire into complaints relating to access of records.
  • Section 18(2) – Power of Information Commission to conduct inquiries.

Constitutional Provision

  • Article 226 of the Constitution of India – Writ jurisdiction of High Courts.

Court Findings / Court Order

The Delhi High Court held that orders passed under the RTI Act are statutory in nature and cannot be declared void or nullified by an administrative order.

The Court observed that where a statute creates a hierarchy of authorities and provides appellate remedies, superior administrative officers cannot interfere with the independence of statutory authorities exercising adjudicatory powers.

The Court held that if the Chairman believed that the orders passed by the CPIO and First Appellate Authority were without authority of law, the proper course available was to challenge them before the Central Information Commission or any other competent judicial forum.

The Court further reiterated that even an order alleged to be void remains operative unless set aside by a competent authority or court.

Accordingly:

  • The impugned administrative order was set aside.
  • Liberty was granted to the respondents to approach the Central Information Commission for appropriate relief.
  • Liberty was also reserved for the petitioner to seek inquiry before the Central Information Commission under Section 18 of the RTI Act regarding his allegations.

Important Clarification

The judgment clarifies that administrative supervision does not permit interference with statutory adjudicatory functions.

The Court reaffirmed the principle that:

  • Administrative superiors cannot invalidate statutory orders merely because they disagree with them.
  • Even a potentially invalid order continues to remain effective until set aside by a competent authority.
  • Statutory remedies and procedural hierarchy must be respected.

Link to download the order - https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/case_number_pdf/2014:DHC:6753/VIB05122014CW29392014.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.