IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
P.N.Praveen Kumar, S/o. Narayanan Nair – Appellant
Versus
State Information Commissioner, Kerala – Respondent
WP(C) No. 25864 of 2011
Decided on : 02-08-2021
Right to Information Act, 2005 – Sections 7(3)(b) and 20 - Petitioner was working as Village Officer - 2nd respondent submitted Ext.P1 to the petitioner for getting certain information as per Act, 2005 - Petitioner received Ext.P1 on - Thereafter petitioner sent a letter on 31.07.2010 requesting the 2nd respondent to pay the required fee and produce the challan receipt - Whether there are grounds to impose a penalty as per Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act.
Finding of the Court:
2nd respondent has no case that he was not aware of appellate jurisdiction. He has no such grievance in Ext.P3 - He submitted appeal in time as evidenced by Ext.P3 appeal - After going through Section 7(3)(a) and (b) also, according to me, there is no grave misconduct on part of petitioner - Therefore, according to me an action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act is not necessary in facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, Exts.P4 and P7 can be set aside.
Result: Writ Petition is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
The petitioner was working as Village Officer, Avidanalloor Village Office. The 2nd respondent submitted Ext.P1 to the petitioner on 03.07.2020 for getting certain information as per Right to Information Act, 2005 (“the Act” for short). The petitioner received Ext.P1 on 08.07.2010. Thereafter the petitioner sent a letter on 31.07.2010 requesting the 2nd respondent to pay the required fee and produce the challan receipt. The challan submitted by the 2nd respondent was received in the Village Office on 12.08.2010. Thereafter the petitioner sent the 2nd letter on 19.08.2010, in which it is stated that the 2nd respondent has either to collect the information sought personally from the Village Office or to provide a stamped envelope for sending the details. Aggrieved by the same, the 2nd respondent submitted Ext.P3 before the 1st respondent. The main grievance of the 2nd respondent in Ext.P3 are the following:
2) It is a deliberate attempt to delay.
The 1st respondent after hearing the petitioner passed Ext.P4 order. Relevant portion of the order is extracted hereunder:
5. The Commission observed that the petitioner requested for information vide application dated 03.07.2010 and it was received by the SPIO on 08.07.2010. the petitioner was asked to remit fee for 17 pages vide letter dated 31.07.2010. Accordingly the petitioner remitted fees of Rs.34/-in the treasury and the challan receipt was sent to the SPIO on 07.08.2010 and the same was received by the SPIO on 12.08.2010. But the SPIO vide letter dated 19.08.2010 asked the petitioner to appear in person in the Village Office to receive the information or send the post cover with required stamp to receive the information. This action of the SPIO is not justifiable under the provisions of the RTI Act. The information requested consisted of only 17 pages, which could have been easily sent to the petitioner by post. The Commission observe that the information has not been provided yet even after the intervention of the Commission.
6. Therefore Commission order that the information requested by the petitioner should be provided to him within seven days of receipt of this order, free of cost u/s 7(6) of the RTI Act and report compliance to the Commission. The amount of Rs.34/-levied, as fees from the petitioner should be refunded to him within seven days. Hence the Commission order to issue notice u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act to the SPIO, Sri.P.N.Praveen, Kottoor Village Officer, Kozhikode for not providing the information to the petitioner in time after remitting the fee.
He should submit his explanation within seven days of receipt of the notice.
2. Thereafter, the 1st respondent initiated proceedings under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act. The petitioner submitted Ext.P5 explanation before the 1st respondent. After going through Ext.P5 explanation, the 1st respondent passed an order imposing a penalty on the petitioner. Ext.P7 is the order. Relevant portion of Ext.P7 is extracted hereunder:
Therefore the Commission order to impose penalty of Rs.10,000/-on the SPIO Sri.P.N.Praveen, Village Officer, Kottor Village for not providing the information to the petitioner in time. He shall remit the amount to the District Treasury, Kozhikode under the Head of Account “0070-60-800-36-Receipts under Right to Information Act-200
Manohar s/o. Manikrao Anchule vs. State of Maharashtra and another : (2012) 13 SCC 14
Right to Information - Required fee and produce challan receipt - Section 7(3)(b) says about the details to be mentioned in intimation, including details of appellate authority, time limit etc.
Penalty and disciplinary recommendation under RTI Act Section 20 require persistent default without reasonable cause; institutional delays from workload and staff shortage not personal fault; biased,....
The court established that the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, 2005 should be strictly construed, and the Commissioner must ensure that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide b....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.