A statutory order, even if a nullity, continues to be effective unless set aside by a competent authority
A statutory order, even if a nullity, continues to be effective unless set aside by a competent authority. Such orders cannot be nullified by an administrative order
The principal controversy in R.K. JAIN vs CHAIRMAN, INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION & ORS., was whether the Chairman, Income Tax Settlement Commission could void an order passed by Central Public Information Officer & Administrative Officer, Income Tax Settlement Commission.
Background:
The petitioner had filed an RTI application seeking information, inter alia, with respect to disposal and pendency of matters before the Income Tax Settlement Commission. In response to this application, respondent no.2 (CPIO and Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Settlement Commission) passed an order dated 26.09.2013 furnishing certain information to the petitioner. However, by the said order certain other information as sought for was denied. The petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent no 4, who was specified as the First Appellate Authority. The said appeal was partly allowed by an order dated 21.10.2013.
The petitioner sent a letter dated 23.10.2013 to respondent no.2 seeking compliance of the order dated 21.10.2013, however, received no response thereto. Thereafter, the petitioner sent another reminder dated 09.03.2014 and subsequent thereto received the impugned order on 15.03.2014, which was issued by respondent no. 3 (and not by respondent no. 2 who had passed the earlier order as the CPIO). The impugned order referred to an administrative order passed by the respondent no. 1; the extract of which as quoted in the impugned order reads as under:
"As there has been total no-compliance by the JDIT-II and DIT(Inv) of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and notification by the Chairman, ITSC, New Delhi order No. C- 26016/1/05/SC-RTI/1178 dated 29/31-07-2013, the orders of even numbers dated 26.09.2013 and 21.10.2013 passed by the JDIT and DIT(Inv) are ab initio void and are annulled. The RTI application will be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and notification by the Chairman, ITSC, New Delhi order No.C-26016/1/05/SC- RTI/1178 dated 29/31-07-2013 by the Administrative Officer, (CPIO) ITSC, Principal Bench, New Delhi at the earliest."
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the orders passed by the CPIO (i.e. respondent no 2) and the First Appellate Authority (i.e. respondent no. 4) could not be denied or declared as void by an administrative order. This is disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents who submits that the Chairman, Income Tax Settlement Commission, being the overall administrative head of the department, would have the inherent power to pass an administrative order in respect of any order passed by the other sub-ordinate officers. He contends that respondent nos.2 and 4 were not the designated authorities under the RTI Act with respect to the information sought by the petitioner since the information pertained to another wing of the department.
HELD by the High Court:
(i) It is not disputed that the orders dated 26.09.2013 and 21.10.2013 were orders passed under the RTI Act and in that sense were in exercise of statutory powers. I am unable to accept that such orders passed in exercise of statutory powers could be declared as a nullity or void by an administrative order without recourse to the hierarchy of authorities as specified in the statute – the RTI Act. In the event, the respondent no.1 was of the view that the orders passed by respondent nos.2 & 4 were without authority of law, the proper and the only course would be to file an appeal before the Central Information Commission (hereafter the ‘CIC’) or any other competent judicial forum. However, the said orders could not be nullified by an administrative order.
(ii) It is well settled that even if an order is a nullity, it would continue to be effective unless set aside by a competent body or Court. In this case respondent no. 1 is not authorised under the RTI Act to interfere with the orders passed under the RTI Act.
The principal controversy in R.K. JAIN vs CHAIRMAN, INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION & ORS., was whether the Chairman, Income Tax Settlement Commission could void an order passed by Central Public Information Officer & Administrative Officer, Income Tax Settlement Commission.
Background:
The petitioner had filed an RTI application seeking information, inter alia, with respect to disposal and pendency of matters before the Income Tax Settlement Commission. In response to this application, respondent no.2 (CPIO and Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Settlement Commission) passed an order dated 26.09.2013 furnishing certain information to the petitioner. However, by the said order certain other information as sought for was denied. The petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent no 4, who was specified as the First Appellate Authority. The said appeal was partly allowed by an order dated 21.10.2013.
The petitioner sent a letter dated 23.10.2013 to respondent no.2 seeking compliance of the order dated 21.10.2013, however, received no response thereto. Thereafter, the petitioner sent another reminder dated 09.03.2014 and subsequent thereto received the impugned order on 15.03.2014, which was issued by respondent no. 3 (and not by respondent no. 2 who had passed the earlier order as the CPIO). The impugned order referred to an administrative order passed by the respondent no. 1; the extract of which as quoted in the impugned order reads as under:
"As there has been total no-compliance by the JDIT-II and DIT(Inv) of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and notification by the Chairman, ITSC, New Delhi order No. C- 26016/1/05/SC-RTI/1178 dated 29/31-07-2013, the orders of even numbers dated 26.09.2013 and 21.10.2013 passed by the JDIT and DIT(Inv) are ab initio void and are annulled. The RTI application will be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and notification by the Chairman, ITSC, New Delhi order No.C-26016/1/05/SC- RTI/1178 dated 29/31-07-2013 by the Administrative Officer, (CPIO) ITSC, Principal Bench, New Delhi at the earliest."
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the orders passed by the CPIO (i.e. respondent no 2) and the First Appellate Authority (i.e. respondent no. 4) could not be denied or declared as void by an administrative order. This is disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents who submits that the Chairman, Income Tax Settlement Commission, being the overall administrative head of the department, would have the inherent power to pass an administrative order in respect of any order passed by the other sub-ordinate officers. He contends that respondent nos.2 and 4 were not the designated authorities under the RTI Act with respect to the information sought by the petitioner since the information pertained to another wing of the department.
HELD by the High Court:
(i) It is not disputed that the orders dated 26.09.2013 and 21.10.2013 were orders passed under the RTI Act and in that sense were in exercise of statutory powers. I am unable to accept that such orders passed in exercise of statutory powers could be declared as a nullity or void by an administrative order without recourse to the hierarchy of authorities as specified in the statute – the RTI Act. In the event, the respondent no.1 was of the view that the orders passed by respondent nos.2 & 4 were without authority of law, the proper and the only course would be to file an appeal before the Central Information Commission (hereafter the ‘CIC’) or any other competent judicial forum. However, the said orders could not be nullified by an administrative order.
(ii) It is well settled that even if an order is a nullity, it would continue to be effective unless set aside by a competent body or Court. In this case respondent no. 1 is not authorised under the RTI Act to interfere with the orders passed under the RTI Act.
Comments
Post a Comment