Public Information Officers must comply with the Right to Information Act's requirements to provide information within 30 days; failure results in penalties to ensure accountability.

ORDER :

R. NATARAJ, J.

W.P.No.50129/2015 is filed challenging an order bearing No. dated 29.04.2015 passed by the respondent No.1.

2. W.P.No.16716/2016 is filed challenging the order bearing No. dated 13.04.2015 and the order bearing No. dated 28.08.2015 passed by the respondent No.1.

3. W.P.No.16717/2016 is filed challenging the order bearing No. dated 13.04.2015 and the order bearing No. dated 28.08.2015 passed by the respondent No.1.

-

4. W.P.No.16718/2016 is filed challenging the order bearing No. dated 13.04.2015 and the order bearing No. dated 28.08.2015 passed by the respondent No.1.

5. W.P.No.16719/2016 is filed challenging the order bearing No. dated 13.04.2015 and the order bearing No. dated 28.08.2015 passed by the respondent No.1.

6. (i) In all these petitions, the petitioner was designated as a Public Information Officer in the Department of Agriculture, Uttara Kannada District. The respondent No.2 in all these petitions submitted applications under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (henceforth referred to as 'R.T.I. Act') seeking information about Integrated Barren Land Scheme in Mynalli village, Ajjihalli village, Salagao village and Bappanagundi village. The applications were filed on 11.05.2013 and 06.06.2013. The petitioner being the Public Information Officer replied on 10.06.2013 calling upon the respondent No.2 to inspect the documents that were needed. Since the petitioner did not furnish the information, respondent No.2 filed first appeals before the Assistant Director of Agriculture under Section 19(1) of the R.T.I. Act. The First Appellate authority did not consider the appeals in time. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was transferred as the Agricultural Officer, Chitradurga District in terms of Government Order dated 09.10.2013. Since the respondent No.2 was not provided with the information sought for and his first appeals were not considered, he filed second appeals under Section 19(3) of the R.T.I. Act. The respondent No.1 issued a notice to the incumbent Public Information Officer at Uttara Kannada District.

(ii) The petitioner claims that no notice was served to him and therefore, he did not appear before the Commissioner. However, a show-cause notice was issued to him as to why the penalty should not be imposed for not supplying information. The respondent No.1 also passed an order directing the incumbent Public Information Officer to furnish the information sought for by the respondent No.2.

-

(iii) The petitioner claims that in order to ensure that the documents are furnished to respondent No.2, he wrote letters to the incumbent Public Information Officer requesting him to furnish information to the respondent No.2. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the show-cause notice and requested the respondent No.1 to drop penalty proceedings against him. The respondent No.1 took a view that there were malafides on the part of the petitioner in not furnishing the information and therefore, imposed penalty of Rs.25,000/-, Rs.10,000/-, Rs.10,000/-, Rs.10,000/- and Rs.10,000/- in respective cases. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent No.2 had filed applications seeking information on 11.05.2013 and 06.06.2013. The petitioner had replied to him on 10.06.2013 to visit the office and inspect the documents that were needed. He contends that respondent No.2 instead of visiting the office and identifying the documents that were needed, filed first appeals before the First Appellate Authority and thereafter, approached the respondent No.1. He contends that the respondent No.2 had sought for voluminous documents and therefore, it was for him to inspect and identify the documents that were needed and also pay requisite fee to make photocopies of the same. He submits that the petitioner was diligent in disposing off the request of respondent No.2 and that it was respondent No.2, who was more interested in pe