1. The petitioner has taken out present petition seeking below mentioned relief and directions:
"9(A) Issue appropriate writ, direction and/or order to quash and set aside the order dated 5.6.2012 passed by Respondent No.1, as being bad in law, illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and is passed against the law of Natural Justice;
(B) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent nos. 2 to 4 to follow the proper procedure while passing the order in relation to third party information in Appeal JCIT/R-7/RTI/APPEAL/SMT. USHA GOYAL/2012-13.
(C) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents that the details which are disclosed by Respondent No.1 to Smt. Usha Goyal be in no manner be used by her in any litigation."
2. Mr.Sethna, learned Advocate has appeared for the petitioner. He submitted that in contravention of the provisions contained under Right to Information Act and with total disregard to the request expressly made by the petitioner the respondent no.1 has parted with/divulged and provided 'third party information' to the applicant who made application under provisions of Right to Information Act seeking details related to the petitioner. The petitioner's grievance is that without considering the objections of the petitioner and the nature of the details asked for by the applicant, respondent no.1 could not have divulged or parted with details related to the petitioner i.e. 'third party information'. The learned counsel for petitioner also submitted that in view of the action of the respondent no.1 which are in total disregard to and in contravention of the provisions under the Act. The said information officer i.e. respondent no.1 is required to be visited with the appropriate order of penalty.
3. After arguing the petition to certain extent, the learned counsel for petitioner, after considering the provisions under Section 19 of the Act which authorises the State Information Commissioner to pass appropriate orders including order of penalty, requested for permission to withdraw present petition with a view to filing appropriate application before the State Information Commissioner.
4. The provision under Section 19 of Act provides substantive, effective and efficacious remedy by way of Appeal to the State Commission and that therefore in view of the said statutory remedy, which is available to the petitioner under the provisions of the Act, present petition does not deserve to be entertained. The said section 19 of Act reads thus:-
"19.
Appeal.-
Any person who, does not receive a decision within the time specified in sub-section (1) or clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may within thirty days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of such a decision prefer an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer as the case may be, in each public authority:Provided that such officer may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of thirty days if he or she is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.
Where an appeal is preferred against an order made by a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under section 11 to disclose third party information, the appeal by the concerned third party shall be made within thirty days from the date of the order.
A second appeal against the decision under sub-section (1) shall lie within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received, with the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission:
Provided that the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.
(4)..............
(5)..............
(6)..............
(7)..............
(8)..............
(9)..............
(10)..........."
5. It can be seen from the aforesaid provision that the State Commission, as an Appellate Authority, is conferred with requisite power to decide Appeal and pass necessary and appropriate orders in accordance with the provisions under the Act. When a special statute provides specific remedy and creates special forum under the Act by way of an Appeal then the party aggrieved by any order made under the Act ought to take recourse before the said authority and the Court would ordinarily relegate the petitioner to such statutory remedy. In present case, hierarchy of authority is constituted under the Act i.e. first adjudicating authority, first appellate authority and second appellate authority (viz. State Commission). Thus specific remedy is provided and special forum is created under the Special Act and that therefore the petitioner ought to approach the State Commission. Hence, the petition does not deserve to be entertained. It is necessary and appropriate that the petitioner should be relegated to the Appellate Authority constituted under the Act.
6. It is necessary to mention that against the order passed by respondent No.1, whereby the respondent No.1 partly allowed the application of the applicant, appeal has been preferred by the applicant. The said appeal is pending before the Appellate Authority.
7. In that view of the matter also the petitioner is required to be relegated to the remedy available under statute.
8. Hence, the request as prayed for is granted. Petition is permitted to be withdrawn with a view to filing appropriate application before the State Information Commissioner.
9. Petition, accordingly, stands disposed of.
(K.M.THAKER, J.) jani Top