public information officer is supposed to supply correct information, that too, in a time bound manner

 As per
provisions of the Act, Public Information Officer is supposed to supply
correct information, that too, in a time bound manner. Once a finding has
come that he has not acted in the manner prescribed under the Act,
imposition of penalty is perfectly justified.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.14161 of 2009
Date of Decision: 10.09.2009
Shaheed Kanshi Ram Memorial College and another
Petitioners
Versus
State Information Commission, Punjab and others
Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH



This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash order
dated 4.6.2009 (P1), vide which, penalty of Rs.10,000/- has been imposed
on the petitioners, for causing unnecessary harassment to respondent No.3,
in supplying the information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (in
short, the Act).
It is apparent from the records and not disputed before this
Court that respondent No.3 filed an application under the Act, seeking some
information, to be supplied by the petitioners, on 10.12.2008. As per
provisions of the Act, information was to be supplied within 30 days,
however, by supplying incorrect information, respondent No.3 was forced to
move a complaint before the State Information Commission, which gave a
specific finding in its order dated 24.4.2009 that the information supplied
was not complete. Relevant portion of order reads thus:-
“2. The respondent has prepared the statement of CPF loan
recoveries made by the SKRM college from the complainant’s
pay, in compliance with the directions of the Court dated
13.3.2009, and has sent it to the complainant. The
complainant in her letter dated 24.4.2009, however, has
pointed out various anomalies in the statement prepared by the
respondent. The most important of these is the fact that in
response to the complainant’s letter No.7 dated 23.4.2009, the
respondent had informed her consist exclusively of the
recoveries of her CPF loan, whereas in the Court today, he has
clarified that the deposited amounts are inclusive of the
complainant’s CPF contributions. Since the amounts
deposited obviously did not match the figures representing
deductions of the CPF loan, this error of the respondent
created a lot of confusion in the complainant’s mind and
resulted in her suffering a great deal of mental harassment.
3. The second very important shortcoming in the manner in
which the respondent has dealt with this case is his refusal and
reluctance to give to the complainant part of the information
for which she had applied on 12.2.2008, namely, “the details
mentioning the dates on which the installments were deducted
from my salary….” From the very beginning till even now,
after a statement has been prepared by the respondent in
compliance with the Courts orders, the respondent has not vein
this information to the complainant leading to the suspicion
that it is being deliberately suppressed.
4. There are other anomalies as well. Even after the
commission directed the respondent to give the information to
give the information in a clear and easily understandable form
vide its orders dated 13.2.2009, sufficient care was not taken

by the respondent and in the statement provided to the
complainant, there are errors in column 4 of page 2 thereof,
which were corrected and initiated by the respondent in the
Court.”
Taking note of the above said shortcomings, notice was issued
to the petitioner No.2, to show cause, as to why penal action be not initiated
against him under Section 20 of the Act. It is an admitted fact that the order
passed on 24.4.2009 was never challenged by the petitioner. It has become
final. If that is so, imposition of penalty is perfectly justified. As per
provisions of the Act, Public Information Officer is supposed to supply
correct information, that too, in a time bound manner. Once a finding has
come that he has not acted in the manner prescribed under the Act,
imposition of penalty is perfectly justified. No case is made out for
interference.
Dismissed.
10.09.2009      (Jasbir Singh)
gk   Judge
3

Print Page