I have considered the rival contentions in detail. In
Ext.P8, there is no specific finding that the petitioner delayed
furnishing of the information without reasonable cause. But,
still the explanation offered by the petitioner would only be
sufficient to reduce the penalty and not to absolve the
petitioner from liability. Ignorance of law is no excuse. The
petitioner had sufficient time to get himself acquainted withthe law and get clarification within the time stipulated. There
was delay in doing the same for which I am of opinion that a
nominal penalty has to be imposed on the petitioner, which is
necessary to ensure strict compliance with the provisions of
the Right to Information Act, by the petitioner and others in
future.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/9TH
PHALGUNA 1933
WP(C).No. 27210 of 2007 (L)
P.G.SASIDHARAN,
THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, COMMERCIAL TAXES
ERNAKULAM.
RESPONDENT(S):--------------
1. THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION,
Dated this the 28th day of February, 2012
JUDGMENTThis writ petition arises under the Right to Information Act.
The 2nd respondent filed a request under the Right to Information
Act for information within the possession of the Public
Information Officer, Commercial Taxes, Ernakulam. At the time
when the request was submitted on 24.5.2006, the petitioner's
predecessor in office, one Smt. Rahmanthnisa Begum was the
Public Information Officer. She endorsed on the file that the
views of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes may be sought
and thereafter, she entered on leave. In her absence, one
Sri. J. Julies Smith was holding additional charge of the office of
the Public Information Officer. But, he did not know of the
request and he demitted office on 10.7.06. Thereafter, the
petitioner took charge as the Public Information Officer. The
request came to his attention on 13.7.06. But, he provided the
information to the 2nd respondent only on 12.9.06, after sixty
days. The 2nd respondent approached the Commission because
of delay in furnishing information and it was during the
pendency of those proceedings, the information was supplied.
Thereafter, the State Information Commission initiated
proceedings under Section 20 of the Act and by Ext.P8 order
imposed on the petitioner penalty of Rs.7500/- for the delay in
supplying the information. That order is under challenge in
this writ petition.2. The petitioner's contention is that penalty under
Section 20 can be imposed only by finding that, without
reasonable cause, the Public Information Officer refused to
furnish the information. In this case, when the request came
to this attention, he immediately wrote to the Commissioner of
Commercial Taxes for clarification as to whether the
information can be supplied, in view of Section 85 of the
Kerala Value Added Tax Act. On 25.8.2006, the State
Information Commissioner directed the petitioner to dispose of
the request of the 2nd respondent within ten days and to report
compliance before 15.9.2006. In the meantime, on 2.9.2006,
the Commissioner of Commercial Tax, by letter dated 23.8.2006
also clarified that the information sought for would not come
under any prohibitory clause under Right to Information Act.
On 8.9.2006, the petitioner directed the Commercial Tax
Officer, Kalamassery to furnish the information, which was
supplied on 12.9.2006. The petitioner submits that the
request of the 2nd respondent was the first of its kind dealt with
by the petitioner and the petitioner did not even have a copy
of the Right to Information Act which was actually borrowed
from the office of the Deputy Commissioner and the petitioner
was not very sure as to whether the information was one that
could be legally supplied. Therefore, according to thepetitioner, the petitioner had sufficient and reasonable cause
for not furnishing the information within the time stipulated, is
the contention raised.
3. The learned counsel for the State Information
Commission submits that the reasons put forward by the
petitioner are not valid reasons for delay in furnishing the
information. According to him, the ignorance of law is no
excuse. The petitioner had sufficient time to furnish the
information by obtaining clarification, if necessary from the
Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. Therefore, it cannot be
stated that the petitioner had sufficient cause for not
furnishing the information within the time stipulated, is the
contention raised.
4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. In
Ext.P8, there is no specific finding that the petitioner delayed
furnishing of the information without reasonable cause. But,
still the explanation offered by the petitioner would only be
sufficient to reduce the penalty and not to absolve the
petitioner from liability. Ignorance of law is no excuse. The
petitioner had sufficient time to get himself acquainted withthe law and get clarification within the time stipulated. There
was delay in doing the same for which I am of opinion that a
nominal penalty has to be imposed on the petitioner, which is
necessary to ensure strict compliance with the provisions of
the Right to Information Act, by the petitioner and others in
future.
5. In the above circumstances, while upholding Ext.P8,
I reduce the penalty payable by the petitioner to Rs.1,000/-,
which shall be paid within two weeks from today.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
acd
No comments:
Post a Comment