2010 Supreme(Bom) 471

In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE U.D. SALVI
A.A. Parulekar
Versus
G.G. Kambli & Shri A. Venkataratnam State Information Commissioner & State Chief Information Commissioner & Others
WRIT PETITION NO.364 OF 2007
Decided on : 26-03-2010

Headnote:Right of Information Act, 2005 - Section 6(3)-Transfer of application-From State Public Information Officer to State Assistant Public Information Officer-Both officers are public authorities as contemplated under Section 6(3) of Act-Transfer taken place is transfer of application under Section 6(3) of Act.-The State Public Information Officer and State Assistant Public Information Officer are public authorities as contemplated under Section 6(3) of the Act. The transfer of application under Section 6(3) of the Act by the officer holding charge of the petitioner as SSW-State Public Information Officer to the Deputy Director of Administration, P.W.D., A.P.I.O. can, therefore, be viewed as transfer of the application under Section 6, sub-section 3 of the Act.

       Right of Information Act, 2005 - Section 20-Imposition of penalty-For withholding disclosure of information-State Commission passed order without appreciating explanation offered by State Public Information Officer for his action-Facts necessary to indicate mala fides on part of officer lacking in material also considered by State Commission-Order imposing penalty on officer no sustainable-Quashed and set aside.-Facts necessary to indicate the mala fides on the part of the petitioner, are found conspicuously lacking in the material considered by the State Commission. Moreover, the State Commission failed to appreciate the explanation offered by the petitioner for his actions in proper perspective.

       In the given facts and circumstances, this petition must succeed. The impugned orders holding the petitioner guilty for mala fidely withholding disclosure of the information, and consequently penalising him with a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- are quashed and set aside.

       Right to Information Act, 2005 - Penalty due to non-supply of information - Order by State Information Commission - On petitioner/Public Information Officer - Challenged - Held - It is necessary to ensure that the failure to supply the information is either intentional or deliberate - Order of penalty as impugned is based on fiction - No such fiction is created by law nor facts it is held that the define is fake - Impugned order is liable to be set aside.

       Right to Information Act, 2005 - Sections 6(3) and 20 - With holding disclosure of information - Petitioner challenging order of Goa State Information Commissioner holding him guilty of mala fidely withholding disclosure of information to respondent-2 - Petitioner contends, he promptly passed order and directed Deputy Director of Administration as S.P.I.O. to furnish requisite information sought by respondent-2 - Held - Impugned order reveals, lack of bona fides resulted in denial of information and harassment of respondent-2 on part of petitioner - State Commission failed to appreciate explanation offered by petitioner - View of Commission erroneous - Impugned orders quashed and set aside - Petition allowed. - Facts necessary to indicate the mala fides on the part of the petitioner, are found conspicuously lacking in the material considered by the State Commission. Moreover, the State Commission failed to appreciate the explanation offered by the petitioner for his actions in proper perspective.

       Undoubtedly, the requisite information was closely connected with the functions of the Deputy Director of Administration, P.W.D. - Public Authority - A.P.I.O. and as such held by it. Fact of transfer of the application by one public authority to another is not in dispute except the view taken by the State Commission about such transfer. This view of the State Commission certainly is erroneous.

       In the given facts and circumstances, this petition must succeed. The impugned orders holding the petitioner guilty for mala fidely withholding disclosure of the information, and consequently penalising him with a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- are quashed and set aside. However, the State must note that things do not speak well about the governance in the State, particularly regarding disclosure of information under the said Act. Rule is, therefore, made absolute with no order as to costs.