IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17182 of 2008 Bihar Staff Selection Commission, through its Secretary, Veterinary College, Shekhpura, Patna- 14 ……… Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Information & Public Relation Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. The State Information Commission through its Secretary, Soochna Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 3. Manoj Kumar Singh, S/o not known, Deputy Secretary Koshang, Deptt. of Agriculture & Cane Development, State of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Ranchi… Respondents ----------- For the petitioner: M/s. P.K.Shahi, Sr. Advocate, Vipin Kumar, S.S.Sundaram and Vikash Kumar, Advocates For the State: M/s. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate, Mrs. Binita Singh and Mahesh Prasad, Advocates For private Resp.: M/s. Rewati Kant Ramn and Gopal Sharan,Advocates ----------- 5. 06.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State Information Commission and learned counsel for Respondent no.3. The present writ application has been filed by the petitioner to set aside the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner by the State Information Commission pursuant to Case No. 3826/07-08 by which the Case Nos. 2512/07-08 and 1505/07-08, which had been earlier disposed of, have once again been reopened and also to quash the order dated 18.9.2008 passed by the State Information Commission by which the petitioner 2 has been directed to deposit the monetary fine of Rs. 25,000/- which had been fixed by order dated 21.2.2008 itself, and further directed the Public Information Officer, Bihar Staff Selection Commission to provide the information sought for by the private respondent failing which to appear in person before the Commission and explain why action under Section 20(2) of the Right to Information Act be not taken against him. The short facts of this case are that the respondent no. 3 sought information from the petitioner- Bihar Staff Selection Commission by his application dated 19.3.2007 sent by speed post. Not being satisfied by the reply, he filed an appeal sent through speed post before the First Appellate Officer, Bihar Staff Selection Commission on 27.4.2007. The respondent no. 3 had sought four informations in relation to Limited Competitive Examination in which he was a candidate. Reply to the same was given by letter dated 13.4.2007 and 21.5.2007 in which it was also stated that for getting information regarding the marks sheet he will have to separately deposit the fee and on such deposit the information shall be given to him. The respondent no. 3 thereafter 3 approached the State Information Commission which registered Case No. 1505/07-08 against the Secretary, Bihar Staff Selection Commission and directed him to provide the required information and also submit an explanation as to why the information sought for by the respondent no. 3 was not made available to him within 30 days. The petitioner informed the respondent no. 3 by letter dated 31.8.2007 that he was required to deposit a fee of Rs. 250/- so that the information sought for could be made available to him. On 11.9.2007 the State Information Commission taking note of the said letter directed the respondent no. 3 to deposit the fee before the Bihar Staff Selection Commission and obtain the document and closed the case. Again the respondent no. 3 approached the State Information Commission seeking a rehearing of Case No. 1505/07-08 stating that despite deposit of the fee the documents have not been supplied to him upon which Case No. 2512/07-08 was initiated and by order dated 7.11.2007 while directing the petitioner to make available all the documents by 26.11.2007 further issued a show cause notice to the Secretary-cum-Public Information 4 Officer, Bihar Staff Selection Commission as to why he had not supplied the documents sought for despite clear order in Case No. 1505/07-08 and why penal proceedings be not initiated against him under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act. The petitioner by its letter dated 20.11.2007 sent detailed information to the respondent no. 3, copy of which was sent to the State Information Commission. By order dated 28.11.2007, Shri Md. Shakil Ahmed, State Information Commissioner after noting the presence of the applicant, respondent no. 3 and the Secretary, Bihar Staff Selection Commission and the letter dated 20.11.2007 held that it appears from the reply that the information sought for has been given to the applicant and closed the case. Thereafter the respondent no. 3 filed another application before the State Information Commission complaining that copy of his answer sheet has not been given to him and by order dated 21.2.2008 passed by Shri P.N.Narayanan, State Information Commissioner in Case No. 3826/07-08, the earlier Case Nos. 2512/07-08 and 1505/07-08 were reopened and added with Case No. 3826/07-08 and notices were issued under Section 20(1) 5 of the Act as to why a fine of Rs. 250/- per day with effect from 12.9.2007 amounting to Rs. 25,000/- be not imposed upon him and also directed him to supply copy of the answer sheet. Thereafter, by order dated 18.9.2008 passed in Case No. 3826/07-08, Shri P.N.Narayanan, the State Information Commissioner directed the Public Information Officer to deposit the penal amount of Rs. 25,000/- as fixed by the order dated 21.2.2008 and also supply the information sought and further give explanation as to why a proceeding under Section 20(2) of the Act be not initiated against him and further why he should not be directed to pay compensation to the petitioner under Section 19(8)(b) of the Act. Against the said order the petitioner filed a review petition before the State Information Commissioner on 24.3.2008 which was however not taken into consideration. Mr. P.K.Shahi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Bihar Staff Selection Commission apart from defending the action of the petitioner-Commission on the merits stated that the advertisement was of the year 2004, examination was held in the year 2005 and the result also had been published in the year 2006 and the law then 6 prevailing did not provide for supply of answer sheet; therefore, efforts were not made to provide for detection of the answer sheets which are OMR type of test, in which there is a Optional Marking Rider, and there are Bar Codes. The said answer sheets were printed by agency outside the State. After completion of the written examination both parts of the answer sheets, namely, the data part and the answer part, are separated by the concerned authorities which are sealed in separate envelopes and it is difficult to detect the answer part of the applicant manually because it can be detected by reading the Bar Code which is common on both part by sophisticated scanning machine with technology to read and tally the Bar Code which job had been outsourced to outside agency. However, the main thrust of the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the State Information Commission is a quasi-judicial authority and not an administrative body and has not been vested with the power of review by the Right to Information Act and thus having passed the final order in the earlier case it had become functus officio and cannot pass order for 7 revival of closed proceedings. Thus, according to him, the order passed by the State Information Commission and the proceedings in Case No. 3826/07-08 are wholly without jurisdiction and fit to be quashed. Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Senior counsel appearing for the State Information Commission and Mr. Rewati Kant Raman, learned counsel for private respondent no.3, on the other hand, have sought to support the action of the State Information Commission. It is submitted that the Commission has powers both of hearing a second appeal under Section 19(3) of the Act and of entertaining a complaint under Section 18. It is submitted by learned counsels that the Commission has merely corrected its earlier order which was erroneous as the petitioner had failed to supply all the information as had been sought and thus the case ought not to have been closed earlier. It is also submitted by learned counsels that earlier also the case had been reopened and thus the Information Commission has power to do so and it is not open to the petitioner Staff Selection Commission to challenge the reopening of the case again. On a consideration of the rival submissions of 8 learned counsels for the parties, I find sufficient force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. It is an established principle of law that a Court or Tribunal has no inherent power to review its own decision. Like the power of appeal the power of review must be conferred by Statute before it could be exercised by a Court or Tribunal. It is only in superior courts of plenary jurisdiction like the Supreme Court or the High Court that there is an inherent power of review to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. Any other Court or quasi-judicial authority can only exercise such power if the same has been expressly conferred upon it by Statute. Learned counsels for the respondents were unable to point out to this Court any provision of the Right to Information Act by which the power of review has been conferred upon the State Information Commission. That being the position, the State Information Commission having closed the proceedings of Case No. 1505/07-08, it was not open to it to have restarted the proceedings with respect to the same matter by initiating Case No. 2512/07-08 or the Case No. 3826/07-08. For the 9 said reasons, the initiation of Case No. 3826/07-08 has to be held to be without jurisdiction and the same is fit to be quashed. The writ application is accordingly allowed and the proceedings of Case No. 3826/07-08 pending before the State Information Commission are quashed as also the orders dated 18.9.2008 and 21.2.2008 passed therein. S. Pandey ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)