IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13946 of 2008 =========================================================== Canara Bank, a body corporate constituted Under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970 having it’s Head Office at 112, J.C. Road, Banglore -560002 and amongst others a branch office at Buxar in the district of Buxar (Bihar) which is represented by its Senior Manager Sri Hridaya Nand Sahay and representative of Public Information Officer, Canara Bank, Circle Office Exhibition Road, Patna. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The State Information Commissioner, State Information Commission, 4th Floor, Suchana Bhavan, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. The Assistant Registrar, State Information Commission, 4th Floor, Suchana Bhavan, Bailey Road, Patna. 4. Additional Collector, Buxar, District- Buxar. 5. Shiv Prakash Rai, son of name not known Convenor, Lok Tantra Raksha Vahini Dhobi Ghat, Gali no.2, Charitravan, Buxar. .... .... Respondents with =========================================================== Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3328 of 2008 =========================================================== Bank of India, having its Head Office at Star House, C-5, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai and a Branch interalia at Buxar in the State of Bihar, through Prakash Kumar Sinha, S/o. Sh. Ram Kishore Prasad, Sr. Branch Manager, Bank of India, Buxar and representative of Public Information Officer, Bank of India, Zonal Office, Birchand Patel Marg, Patna. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. State Information Commissioner, State Information Commission, Fourth Floor, Information Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 2. The Assistant Registrar, State Information Commission, Fourth Floor, Information Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. Additional Collector, Buxar, District- Buxar. 4. Shiv Prakash Rai, S/o. Not known Convenor, Lok Tantra Raksha Vahini Dhobi Ghat, Gali No.02, Charitravan, Buxar. 5. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary. .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance : (In CWJC No. 13946 of 2008) For the Petitioner : Mr. Ratnesh Nandan Sinha, Advocate For State Information Commission : M/s. Lalit Kishore, Senior Advocate and Binita Singh, Advocate For the State : M/s. Dr. Anil Kumar Upadhyay, S.C.20 and Yashraj Bardhan, A.C. to S.C.20 (In CWJC No. 3328 of 2008) For the Petitioner : Mrs. Namrata Mishra, Advocate Patna High Court CWJC No.13946 of 2008 dt.29-07-2015 2/5 For State Information Commission : M/s. Lalit Kishore, Senior Advocate and Binita Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ravish Chandra, A.C. to S.C.16 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 29-07-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, State Information Commission and the State. However, none has appeared on behalf of the private respondent in both matters despite service of notice. The common issue involved in this case is as to whether after decision already having been taken by the State Information Commission in the Second Appeal on merit, whether at the instance of the appellant, the same can be reopened and reviewed by it. The concerned appeal was disposed of by the State Information Commission in following manner : ^^ Jh f”ko izdk”k jk;] /kksch ?kkV] pfj=ou] cDlj A Ckuke~ ftyk inkf/kdkjh] cDlj A jkT; lwpuk vk;ksx]fcgkj]iVuk }kjk fnukad 07-05-2007 dks ikfjr vkns”k dk m)j.k vkosnd mifLFkr gSa A mudk dguk gS fd mUgsa yksd lwpuk inkf/kdkjh&lg&vij lekgRrkZ] cDlj ds earO; ls dksbZ vkifRr ugha gS A mUgsa tks Hkh fjyhQ pkfg,] cSad ls gh feyuk gS vkSj mUgsa lkjh lwpuk cSad ls gh ysuh gS A cSad ds izfrfuf/k dk dguk gS fd og fjtoZ cSad vkWQ bafM;k ds v/khu gS vkSj muds }kjk fn;s Patna High Court CWJC No.13946 of 2008 dt.29-07-2015 3/5 x, funsZ”k gh mu ij ck/; gS A vxj vkosnd dks lwpuk cSad ls ysuh gS rks jkT; lwpuk vk;ksx ds cnys mUgsa dsUnzh; lwpuk vk;ksx esa vkosnu djuk pkfg, A okn dks lekIr fd;k tkrk gS A g0@& g0@& g0@& ¼ih0,u0ukjk;.ku½ ¼ eks0 “kdhy vgen ½ ¼U;k0 “k”kkad dqekj flag½ jkT; lwpuk vk;qDr jkT; lwpuk vk;qDr jkT; eq[; lwpuk vk;qDr It is apparent from the above that the cases were not dismissed in default rather they were closed after consideration on merit. However, subsequently, the private respondent filed a review application and upon that the cases were reopened and reviewed directing the petitioners and others to furnish the required information in three copies before the Commission and matter was fixed for further hearing. Thereafter, the present writ applications were filed and the further proceedings were stayed. Learned counsel appearing for the parties have stated that the issue is no longer res integra as a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.07.2013 rendered in L.P.A. No.355 of 2013 has already delved into this and has held after consideration of the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 as well as the decision of the Apex Court rendered in Patel Narshi Thakershi Vrs. Shri Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji [(1971)3 SCC 844 as under : “ When an authority is created by a statue, its powers, duties and functions are regulated by statutory Patna High Court CWJC No.13946 of 2008 dt.29-07-2015 4/5 provisions. The powers vested in the authority are provided for in the statute itself. Powers not specifically vested in the statutory body are deemed to have been excluded. Section 18 generally provides for the powers and functions of the Commission. Section 19 provides for Appeal. There is no separate statutory provision empowering the Commission to review its order. In absence of any substantive statutory provision for review, the submission that under Sub- clause (f) the residuary power could have been conferred does not appeal to us. We need not discuss that aspect any further since no such provision has been pointed out to us from the Rules also if it could be so. The powers of the Civil Court vested in the Commission are specific under Section 18(3) and cannot be extended beyond the provisions incorporated therein. The power for review under the Code of Civil Procedure is to be found in Section 114. There is no reference to the same in the Act. In Patel Narshi Thakershi (supra), it has been observed at paragraph-4 as follows :- “4. “…….. It is well settled that the power to review is not in inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. No provision in the Act was brought to notice from which it could be gathered that the Government had power to review its own order……..” We find that the order dated 13.12.2011 did not dismiss the application of respondent no.3 for non prosecution but it was disposed by a reasoned order disclosing application of mind. Had it been dismissal simpliciter for non prosecution, we may have taken different view of the matter. The only option available to the respondent no.3 in view of the detailed nature of the order dated 13.12.2011 was to file an Appeal under Section Patna High Court CWJC No.13946 of 2008 dt.29-07-2015 5/5 19 of the Act.” It is clear from the aforesaid decision that, in view of lack of any specific provision, the State Information Commission could not have derived any power to review its earlier order. As a result, both the writ petitions succeed and the entire proceedings of review including the order impugned contained in Annexures 3 and 5 in C.W.J.C. No.13946 of 2008 and Annexure-9 in C.W.J.C. No.3328 of 2008 are quashed and set aside. N.H./- (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J) U