In the present case, the grounds raised by the
appellant for not furnishing the information, like seeking
information or confirmation about the authenticity of the person
applying, verifying whether he is an Indian citizen or not, whether his application should be on the printed letterhead of the
company, etc. cannot be said to be relevant reasons for refusal or
denial of the information sought. This denial is permitted only if
the case and information sought falls under the exemptions as
provided under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act. Beyond these
exemptions, the State Public Information Officer cannot either
delay in giving the information or deny such furnishing of
information. It is to be noted that even though the information
was sought as long back as in August, 2008, necessary
information was furnished only in March, 2009, that too by the
successor of the appellant herein. This indicates that, prima
facie, there was no obstruction for furnishing such information
and hence we find that the State Commission as well as the
learned Single Judge were justified in imposing the penalty which
needs, in our view, no interference.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 2815 of 2009()
1. P.N. MOHANADASAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION,
... Respondent
2. STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER AND
3. RASHEED ANAPPARA,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.S.R.BANNURMATH The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :10/12/2009
O R D E R
S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & A.K. Basheer, J.
------------------------------------------
W.A. No.2815 of 2009
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of December, 2009
JUDGMENT
S.R.Bannurmath, C.J.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge
dated 18th November, 2009 dismissing the writ petition filed by the
appellant herein, the present writ appeal is filed.
2. The appellant who is now working as
Administrative Assistant in the office of the District Medical
Officer of Health, Wayanad was the designated State Public
Information Officer in the office of the District Medical Officer of Health, Pathanamthitta. After such appointment, the third
respondent herein submitted an application on 17.8.2008 under the
Right to Information Act, 2005, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act',
and requested for certain information. On receipt of the
application, the appellant intimated the applicant/third respondent
by letter dated 4.9.2008 to furnish certain details regarding his
organization, the registration number and other details and also to
prove that he is an Indian citizen. Sensing the delaying tactics
and bona fides of the appellant in not giving the information and
delaying it, the third respondent filed a complaint before the State
Commission under Section 18(1) of the Act and after detailed
consideration, the State Commission found that there was refusal
of access to the information and not given a response to the
request for information, and therefore, allowed the complaint and
imposed a penalty as per Ext.P4 order for a sum of Rs.18250/-
calculated at the rate of Rs.250/- per day for a period of 73 days.
3. Aggrieved by the same, the writ petition was filed.
The learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the well
considered order (Ext.P4) and dismissed the writ petition. Hence
the present writ appeal.
4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant is that without invoking the appellate jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Act, the State Commission should not have
entertained the complaint and imposed the penalty.
5. On a perusal of Section 20 of the Act wherein
penalty is proposed to be imposed on a complaint or in an appeal
indicate that irrespective of invoking the appeal provision, a party
can approach and invoke jurisdiction of the State Commission on
a complaint bringing it to the notice that there was illegal denial
of information or withholding of information, as the case may be.
As such, as it is open to the State Commission to impose penalty
either on a complaint in this regard lodged invoking the
jurisdiction of the authority under Section 18 of the Act or in an
appeal filed before it under Section 19 of the Act, the present
invoking of jurisdiction directly under Section 18 cannot be said
to be either illegal or erroneous. In a given case, the aggrieved
party may file appeal against the order of refusal, but it is always
open for him to bring it to the notice of the State Commission the
the delaying tactics which is contrary to the objectives of the
Act.
6. In the present case, the grounds raised by the
appellant for not furnishing the information, like seeking
information or confirmation about the authenticity of the person
applying, verifying whether he is an Indian citizen or not, whether his application should be on the printed letterhead of the
company, etc. cannot be said to be relevant reasons for refusal or
denial of the information sought. This denial is permitted only if
the case and information sought falls under the exemptions as
provided under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act. Beyond these
exemptions, the State Public Information Officer cannot either
delay in giving the information or deny such furnishing of
information. It is to be noted that even though the information
was sought as long back as in August, 2008, necessary
information was furnished only in March, 2009, that too by the
successor of the appellant herein. This indicates that, prima
facie, there was no obstruction for furnishing such information
and hence we find that the State Commission as well as the
learned Single Judge were justified in imposing the penalty which
needs, in our view, no interference.
7. Hence, we find no merit in the writ appeal.
However, at this stage, it is submitted by the learned counsel for
the appellant that as the penalty is heavy some breathing time
may be granted to the appellant to remit the amount. In the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we grant two
instalments to the appellant to pay the penalty, first of which shall
be paid by 31st December, 2009 and the second within 15 days
thereafter. With this modification in the impugned judgment, we
dismiss the writ appeal.
S.R.Bannurmath,
Chief Justice
A.K. Basheer,
Judge
vns
No comments:
Post a Comment