The Chief Information Commissioner has recorded a categorical finding
that although there is delay of 63 days in communication of information yet
the delay is neither deliberate nor willful. The Commissioner has further
concluded that there was no justification for imposition of any penalty.
Once the Chief Information Officer has taken the particular view by taking
into account all the facts and circumstances of the case it is not possible for
us to set aside those finding by substituting the same with our own view.
According to Section 20 of the Act there could be numerous situations when
the penalty could be imposed which includes refusal to receive the
application for information without any reasonable cause or failure to
furnish information within the time specified in sub section 1 of Section 7 of
the Act. It is pertinent to mention that a period 30 days itself has been
provided by sub section 1 of Section 7 of the Act but delay beyond 30 days
has to be without any reasonable cause. If the delay to supply the
information is malafide or it amounts to giving incorrect, incomplete or
misleading information then also penalty could be imposed @ Rs.250/- per
day. Taking into account afore-mentioned provision, we are of the view that
there is no room for us to conclude that the delay was not reasonable or it
was willful or delay was actuated by malafide intention. The order of the
Chief Information Commissioner does not suffer from any legal infirmity
warranting interference of this Court and imposing penalty @ Rs.250/- per
day. The writ petition is wholly without merit and the same is liable to be
dismissed.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
C.W.P.No. 6558 of 2007
Date of decision 28 .3.2008
Rajan Sachdeva
Versus
State Information Commissioner and another
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 26.2.2007
(Annexure P.7) passed by the Chief Information Officer holding that since
the information has been delivered to be petitioner and delay was not
deliberate or willful, no penalty could be imposed on the respondents. It is
appropriate to mention that petitioner is an Advocate and working as Notary
Public. He applied on 10.8.2006 on payment basis to the Public Information
Officer cum District Revenue Officer, office of Deputy Commissioner,
Amritsar, respondent no.2 for supply of certified copies of various
documents viz. (a) certified photostat copy of the application 22.1.2006 (b)
certified photostat copy of record through which four certified copies were
supplied to him by the District Nazar Officer. The application was allowed
on 11.8.2006. The petitioner claims that information with regard to
application fee of Rs.10/- was not intimated to him on 11.8.2006. The
challan receipt of Rs.10/- could be given to him only on 23.8.2006
( Annexure P.3). The case of the petitioner is that under Rule 4(4) of the
Punjab Right to Information Rules, 2006 it is mandatory for the Information
Officer to inform the petitioner about the total payments of fee chargeable
for providing certified copies and the information was required to be given
within 15 days of the receipt of application. The petitioner was informed
vide letter dated 19.10.2006 that he is required to deposit Rs. 8/- which was
obligatory to be supplied to him within 15 days. The petitioner deposited the
requisite fee and information was supplied to him vide Annexure P.4. It is
now claimed that the Chief Information Officer has committed grave error
in law by feeling satisfied that the furnishing of information after 63 days
was justified whereas he was under an obligation to impose penalty on
respondent no.2 who has committed violation of the provisions of Section
20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for brevity 'the Act'). The
operative part of the impugned order passed by the Chief Information
Commissioner reads thus:
“ We find that this is too small a matter to deserve any further
consideration. Information has been duly delivered. Perhaps the
Deputy Commissioner's office could have been more prompt in
compiling the information for delivery. The PIO of the office
of Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar is advised to be more
careful in future. We find that since the delay has not been
deliberate or willful, there is no justification for imposition of
any penalty.”
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper
book we are of the considered view that there is no merit in this petition.
The Chief Information Commissioner has recorded a categorical finding
that although there is delay of 63 days in communication of information yet
the delay is neither deliberate nor willful. The Commissioner has further
concluded that there was no justification for imposition of any penalty.
Once the Chief Information Officer has taken the particular view by taking
into account all the facts and circumstances of the case it is not possible for
us to set aside those finding by substituting the same with our own view.
According to Section 20 of the Act there could be numerous situations when
the penalty could be imposed which includes refusal to receive the
application for information without any reasonable cause or failure to
furnish information within the time specified in sub section 1 of Section 7 of
the Act. It is pertinent to mention that a period 30 days itself has been
provided by sub section 1 of Section 7 of the Act but delay beyond 30 days
has to be without any reasonable cause. If the delay to supply the
information is malafide or it amounts to giving incorrect, incomplete or
misleading information then also penalty could be imposed @ Rs.250/- per
day. Taking into account afore-mentioned provision, we are of the view that
there is no room for us to conclude that the delay was not reasonable or it
was willful or delay was actuated by malafide intention. The order of the
Chief Information Commissioner does not suffer from any legal infirmity
warranting interference of this Court and imposing penalty @ Rs.250/- per
day. The writ petition is wholly without merit and the same is liable to be
dismissed.
As a sequel to the above discussion, the writ petition fails and
the same is dismissed.
(M.M.Kumar)
Judge
(Sabina)
28.3.2008 Judge
okg
No comments:
Post a Comment