NAVALDAN GADHVI Vs. CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 226 of the Constitution of India as well as under the Right to Information Act, 2005 for the prayers: "(A) That this Hon'ble Court will be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to call for the record and proceedings of the Complaint No.1019/2008-09 from the office of the respondent no.1 herein, to peruse and examine the same and after hearing the parties be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 11.04.2011 passed by the respondent no.1 in Complaint No.1019/2008-09. (B) That this Honourable Court will be pleased to stay the implementation, operation and execution of the impugned order dated 11.04.2011 passed by the respondent no.1 in Complaint No.1019/2008-09, till and pending hearing and final disposal of this petition; (C) ...."

(2.) HEARD learned Advocate Shri Y.V.Vaghela for the petitioner and learned Advocate Shri Shivang M. Shah for Respondent No.1- Chief Information Commissioner. No one has remained for Respondent No.2 ­ Original Complainant.

(3.) LEARNED Advocate Shri Shivang M. Shah for Respondent No.1 however submitted that the provisions of Sections 18 and 19 of the RTI Act are independent. He referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Chief Information Commissioner and Anr. v. State of Manipur and Anr. - AIR 2012 SC 864 and referring to the observations made therein, he submitted that the Information Commissioner cannot direct for providing information and at the most he may levy the penalty and therefore the impugned order which has been passed is just and proper for non-compliance with the statutory provisions and considering the object underlying such statute.