Z.A. Haq, J. - (1.) HEARD Shri D.N. Kukday, the learned Advocate for the petitioner and Dr. Anjan De, the learned Advocate for the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 2 is appellate authority, appearance on its behalf is waived.
(2.) RULE . Rule made returnable forthwith. The petitioner -Corporation has challenged the order passed by the State Information Commission, on the application filed by the respondent No. 1 under Section 18 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2005"). By the impugned order, the State Information Commission has directed the petitioner -Corporation to supply the photocopies of the documents as demanded by the respondent No. 1 after inspecting the records as per the order passed by the State Information Commission on 08 -11 -2012. The State Information Commission has further directed that the Joint Managing Director of the petitioner -Corporation shall cause conducting of enquiry by the competent officer in respect of the grievance of the respondent No. 1 about the delay caused by the officers in giving inspection to the respondent No. 1 and for the delay caused in supplying the photocopies of the documents to the respondent No. 1, as per the order passed by the State Information Commission on 08 -11 -2012.
(3.) SHRI D.N. Kukdey, the learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the inspection of all the records as required by the respondent No. 1 has been given to him as per the order passed by the State Information Commission on 08 -11 -2012. It is submitted that the respondent No. 1 has acknowledged the fact that he has inspected the records and the documents to that effect are available with the petitioner Corporation. It is further submitted that the photocopies of 4419 pages have been given to the respondent No. 1. The submission is that the grievance made by the respondent No. 1 in the application filed by him under Section 18 of the Act of 2005 is non existing and based on incorrect statements. It is further submitted that the State Information Commission while considering the application filed by the respondent No. 1 under Section 18 of the Act of 2005 has no power to direct the petitioner -Corporation to conduct the departmental enquiry against the concerned officers and to take appropriate disciplinary action against them and submit the report to the State Information Commission. Relying on the provisions of Section 20 of the Act of 2005, Shri D.N. Kukday, the learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the State Information Commission, at the most, can recommend for disciplinary action against the State Public Information Officer as provided under Section 20(2) of the Act of 2005. It is submitted that, in the present case, the State Information Commission has directed the disciplinary action against the concerned officers without there being any adjudication on the point as to whether there was any lapse on the part of the concerned officers as laid down in Section 20(2) of the Act of 2005. It is further submitted that the State Information Commission has issued the direction for conducting the disciplinary enquiry, which power is not available with the State Information Commission and Section 20(3) of the Act of 2005 enables the State Information Commission only to recommend the disciplinary action against the State Public Information Officer. It is prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the application filed by the respondent No. 1 under Section 18 of the Act of 2005 be dismissed.;