Writ jurisdiction does not warrant interference with a reasoned Information Commission order absent apparent illegality or perversity.

The petitioner submitted an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on 5 July 2021, seeking various documents relating to the Government Fair Price Shop at Jayshrinagar, including the cash book for the period from 1 March 2018 to 1 March 2021 and expenditure vouchers.

As the Public Information Officer did not furnish the information, the petitioner preferred a first appeal. By order dated 23 October 2021, the First Appellate Authority directed the Public Information Officer to supply the information within one week, without charging any fee.

The information was allegedly still not supplied, leading the petitioner to file a second appeal before the State Information Commission. By order dated 14 September 2022, the Commission set aside the first appellate order, recording that the cash book was not maintained by the Government Fair Price Shop.

The petitioner challenged that order under Article 226 of the Constitution, alleging violation of natural justice and contending that the cash book was in fact maintained by the shop.

1. Whether the State Information Commission’s order dated 14 September 2022, setting aside the direction to furnish information under the RTI Act, was liable to be quashed for violation of natural justice or factual/legal infirmity.

2. Whether the High Court ought to interfere in writ jurisdiction with the Commission’s reasoned and speaking order in the absence of apparent illegality, perversity, or other infirmity.

The Court considered the petitioner’s claim under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and the supervisory writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The applicable principle was that interference in writ jurisdiction is warranted only where the impugned administrative or quasi-judicial order suffers from apparent illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error, or other material infirmity. A reasoned and speaking order passed by the competent authority after due consideration ordinarily does not warrant judicial interference.

The petitioner’s reliance on the principles of natural justice was noted, but the Court did not find grounds sufficient to invalidate the Commission’s order.

The Court examined the pleadings, documents, and material on record and accepted that the concerned authorities had passed a reasoned and speaking order after considering the matter.

Although the petitioner asserted that the cash book was maintained by the Government Fair Price Shop and that the Commission had acted ex parte, the Court found no apparent illegality, perversity, or infirmity in the Commission’s findings warranting intervention under Article 226.

Accordingly, the Court declined to reappreciate the factual determination concerning maintenance of the cash book or to substitute its view for that of the competent authority.

The writ petition was found to be devoid of merit and was dismissed, with no direction to the Public Information Officer to furnish the information sought.