Page No. 1/9 GAHC010079122026 2026:GAU-AS:8903 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2891/2026 SHRI SIDDHARTH TIBREWAL SON OF SRI RAVI KUMAR TIBREWAL, DIRECTOR OF M/S FORYOR RESQUE PVT. LTD., RESIDENT OF PANCHSHEEL APARTMENT, GROUND FLOOR, 8/1 DIAMOND HARBOUR ROAD, KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL 700027. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, NEW CM BLOCK, 3RD FLOOR, JANATA BHAWAN, DISPUR, GUWAHATI ASSAM, PIN - 781006. 2:THE ASSAM INFORMATION COMMISSION SECOND APPELLATE AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY THE STATE CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER ASSAM GADAPANI PATH JURIPAR PANJABARI GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN - 781037. 3:THE DIRECTOR FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES ASSAM FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY NEAR LAKHTOKIA OVER BRIDGE PANBAZAR GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN - 781001. 4:THE DIVISIONAL OFFICER (W) W FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES ASSAM THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER Page No. 2/9 NEAR LAKHTOKIA OVER BRIDGE PANBAZAR GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN - 781001 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D K MISHRA, MR B PRASAD,MR P J BORAH,MS F AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR D DEKA, SC, ASSAM INFORMATION COMMISSION BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 17.06.2026 Heard Mr. D.K. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel through virtual mode assisted by Mr. B. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. S.S. Roy, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 1, 3 & 4; and Mr. D. Deka, learned Standing Counsel, Assam Information Commission for the respondent no. 2. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he filed an application before the State Public Information Officer [SPIO], Fire and Emergency Services, Assam on 15.10.2024 seeking information as regards certain clauses incorporated in a tender document in relation to a tender process initiated for awarding contract for ‘Supply of Fire Proximity Suits’. The SPIO vide its Letter dated 21.11.2024 refused to provide those information allegedly on the ground that such information were exempted under Section 8[1][b] and Section 8[1][j] of the Right to Information Act, 2005 [‘the RTI Act’, for short]. The SPIO further mentioned that the information sought for by the petitioner were classified and confidential to a third party. The SPIO even refused to provide the minutes of the technical and financial evaluation on the ground that they were under consideration of a judicial body. 3. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed a first appeal under Section 19[1] of the RTI Act before the 1st Appellate Authority against the refusal to provide information by the SPIO, Fire Page No. 3/9 and Emergency Services, Assam. The 1st Appellate Authority, by an Order dated 22.01.2025, upheld the Order of the SPIO dated 21.11.2024 and dismissed the appeal. 4. The petitioner had thereafter, preferred a second appeal under Section 19[3] of the RTI Act before the 2nd Appellate Authority, that is, the Assam Information Commission [‘the Commission’, for short] on 10.04.2025 against the Orders of the SPIO and the 1st Appellate Authority. 5. The second appeal came up for consideration before the 2nd Appellate Authority on 21.05.2025. The Commission took into consideration that a case, Case no. 5 of 2023 was registered in the office of the Lokayukta, Assam. The Commission took into consideration the observations made by the High Court of Jharkhand in the case of the State of Jharkhand and others vs. Navin Kumar Singha and others, AIR 2008 Jhar 19, decided on 08.08.2007, wherein it was observed that if the authorities of the Government would refuse to disclose the document, the very purpose of the RTI Act would be frustrated. Disclosure of information sought for by an applicant under the RTI Act, could not and shall not be a trade secret or commercial confidence. The High Court had proceeded to observe that disclosure of such information shall be in public interest inasmuch as it would show the transparency in the activities of the Government. Taking note of such observations, the Commission as the 2nd Appellate Authority had called upon the 1st Appellate Authority, that is, the respondent no. 3 to take appropriate action on the basis of the facts and observations made in the Order dated 21.05.2025. 6. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has brought to notice that against the said decision of the Jharkhand High Court, the State of Jharkhand preferred a Special Leave to Appeal, SLP[C] no. 18030/2007 [State of Jharkhand and another vs. Navin Kumar Sinha and another] before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 05.10.2007, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, refused to interfere with the Judgment of the Jharkhand High Court and dismissed the SLP. Page No. 4/9 7. It is the case of the petitioner that after the Order dated 21.05.2025 passed by the 2nd Appellate Authority, the Order was brought to the notice of the 1st Appellate Authority on 18.06.2025, followed by a reminder on 24.10.2025. Despite such efforts from the petitioner, the 1st Appellate Authority is not found to have acted in deference to the Order dated 21.05.2025 passed by the 2nd Appellate Authority. The case of the petitioner is that the 1st Appellate Authority has been sitting in appeal over the Order dated 21.05.2025 passed by the 2nd Appellate Authority without doing anything. 8. Mr. Deka, learned Standing Counsel, Assam Information Commission has submitted the petitioner without approaching the Assam Information Commission first, has approached this Court by the instant writ petition invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution whereas adequate remedy is available to the petitioner under the RTI Act. 9. Section 18 of the RTI Act reads as under :- 18. Powers and functions of Information Commission.-[1] Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall be the duty of the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission as the case may be to receive and inquire into a complaint from any person,- [a] who has been unable to submit a request to a Central Public Information Officer, or State Public Information Officer as the case may be, either by reason that no such officer has been appointed under this Act, or because the Central Assistant Public Information Officer or State Assistant Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has refused to accept his or her application for information or appeal under this Act for forwarding the same to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer or Senior Officer specified in sub-section [1] of section 19 or the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be; Page No. 5/9 [b] who has been refused access to any information requested under this Act; [c] who has not been given a response to a request for information or access to information within the time limits specified under this Act; [d] who has been required to pay an amount of fee which he or she considers unreasonable; [e] who believes that he or she has been given incomplete, misleading or false information under this Act; and [f] in respect of any other matter relating to requesting or obtaining access to records under this Act. [2] Where the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to inquire into the matter, it may initiate an inquiry in respect thereof. [3] The Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be shall, while inquiring into any matter under this section, have the same powers as are vested in a civil court while trying a suit under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, in respect of the following matters, namely:- [a] summoning and enforcing the attendance of persons and compel them to give oral or written evidence on oath and to produce the documents or things; [b] requiring the discovery and inspection of documents; [c] receiving evidence on affidavit; [d] requisitioning any public record or copies thereof from any court or office; [e] issuing summons for examination of witnesses or documents; and [f] any other matter which may be prescribed. [4] Notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any other Act of Parliament, or the State Legislature, as the case may be, the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may, during the inquiry of any complaint under this Act, examine any record to which this Act applies which is under the control of the public authority, and no such record may be withheld from it on any grounds. Page No. 6/9 10. This Court in a Judgment and Order dated 12.11.2024 passed in W.P.[C] no. 5132/2024 [Sri Sonadhan Chakma vs. The State of Assam and others], has observed that the State Information Commission, on receipt of a complaint, has the power to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 18 of the RTI Act. The Commission can proceed by taking cognizance of a complaint received from a person, who fulfils the expression, ‘any person’ occurring therein; and who has already exhausted the remedies under Section 6, Section 19[1] and Section 19[3] of the RTI Act, on its own merits by initiating an inquiry as contemplated under Section 18 if the contents of the complaint falls within any of the categories of sub-section [1] of Section 18 of the RTI Act on reaching a satisfaction that there is reason to inquire into the matter. It has been further observed that the Commission is vested with the powers delineated in sub-sections [3] and [4] of Section 18 of the RTI Act to deal with such a complaint. 11. This Court after an analysis of the provisions of the RTI Act has observed in Sonadhan Chakma [supra] in the following manner :- 28. Sub-section [4] of Section 18 of the RTI Act is with a non-obstante clause and it has given overriding powers to the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, to examine any record during the inquiry of any complaint under the RTI Act; examine any record to which the RTI Act applies which is under the control of the public authority; and no such record may be withheld from the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, on any grounds. * * * * * * 31. From the above conspectus, it is evidently clear that the provisions of Section 18 have vital roles to play in enforcement of the directions or orders made by the Central Information Commission of the State Information Commission, as the case may be. A scenario is not difficult to envisage that even after a direction passed by the Page No. 7/9 Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission to furnish information to an applicant in a second appeal preferred under Section 19 [3] of the RTI Act the public authority does not to furnish information to the applicant or furnishes information which is incomplete, misleading or false. If in such a situation the provisions of Section 18 are considered to be not operational then the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission would be incapable to ensure compliance its own directions or orders and the applicant after exhausting all the remedies under the RTI Act would be left remediless, save and except to approach the High Court to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the considered view of this Court, the RTI Act is not enacted for a such situation to turn a Constitutional court to exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to become a court executing the directions or orders of the Central Information Commission of the State Information Commission passed in their appellate jurisdiction. Noticeably, the powers as are vested in a civil court are vested to the Central Information Commission and the State Information Commission by sub-section [3] of Section 18 only while inquiring into any matter under Section 18, but not while adjudicating an appeal under Section 19. Having regard to the provisions incorporated in Section 18 of the RTI Act this Court is of the considered view that the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission are not powerless and incapable to enforce compliance of its own directions or orders. It is true, as submitted by the learned Standing Counsel, KAAC, that sub-section [8] of Section 19 of the RTI Act has vested the Commission with the power to impose any of the penalties which included the penalty under Section 20, but such imposition of penalty is to be passed in its decision rendered in the appellate order under Section 19 [3]. Clause [a] of sub-section [8] of Section 19 has provided that in its decision to be passed under Section 19, the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to take any such steps as may be necessary to secure compliance of the provisions of the RTI Act. If after an order passed in an Page No. 8/9 appeal with direction to furnish information and thereafter, the public authority furnishes information which, according to the applicant, turn out be incomplete, misleading or false then the provision contained in sub-section [8] of Section 19 cannot be made operational as the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, after passing its decision in the appeal under Section 19 would not have the authority invoke it subsequently. 32. By keeping both the expressions, ‘complaint’ and ‘appeal’ in Section 20 separated by ‘or’, it has been made clear that a complaint is separate from an appeal. It has been stipulated in Section 20 that where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any ‘complaint’ or ‘appeal’ is of the opinion that the concerned Public Information Officer has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section [1] of Section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it can impose a penalty in terms of money, after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, in certain situations, can also recommend disciplinary action against the concerned Public Information Officer. 33. It has been settled in Chief Information Commissioner [supra] that the Central Information Commissioner or the State Information Commissioner have supervisory jurisdiction under Section 18 and the same goes to mean that the Central Information Commission and the State Information Commission have power, authority and jurisdiction to pass necessary orders to keep the public authorities over whom it exercises jurisdiction within its bounds and can enforce compliance of the provisions of the Right to Information Act for the purpose of accessing information to the Page No. 9/9 applicants, subject to the other limitations provided in the RTI Act. The Central Information Commission and the State Information Commission are statutory authorities established under Section 12 and Section 15 of the RTI Act. The powers and functions of these Information Commissions are well delineated in Section 18, already quoted hereinabove. In Section 18 of the RTI Act the Legislature has incorporated that it shall be duty of these Commissions to receive and inquire into complaint from any person on any of the issues covered by clause [a] to clause [f] of sub-section [1] of Section 18 of the RTI Act. 12. Taking into consideration the fact that an Order has already been passed by the State Information Commission, on 21.05.2025, thereby, disposing of the second appeal with specific direction to the 1st Appellate Authority to provide the information to the applicant and the direction passed therein has not been complied with, till date, the petitioner would be at liberty to make a complaint to the State Information Commission according to provisions of Section 18 [1] of the RTI Act. If the petitioner makes a complaint before the State Information Commission under the provisions of Section 18 [1] of the RTI Act, the Commission may take cognizance of such complaint on the merits of the complaint. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the present petition is not to be entertained at this stage in view of the availability of such adequate, efficacious and alternative statutory remedy under Section 18 [1] of the RTI Act and the same is hereby disposed of with an observation that the petitioner would be at liberty to take recourse of law, as provided under the RTI Act. JUDGE Comparing Assistant