Point of Law : Section 20 of Act deals with penalties.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner submitted Ext.P1 request for information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) before the 3rd respondent, Central Public Information Officer (CPIO). The CPIO neither rejected the request nor gave a reply within the statutory period.

2. The petitioner, therefore, preferred Ext. P2 First Appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act before the 2nd respondent. The same was rejected vide Ext. P3 order stating that the CPIO has replied to the request of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent concurs with the same. It is stated in Ext.P3 that a copy of the order of CPIO is also enclosed therewith. The petitioner was also informed that in case he is not satisfied with the decision of the 2nd respondent, he can submit a Second Appeal before the Central Information Commission, New Delhi, whose address is furnished, as per Section 19(3) of the Act within 90 days of receipt of the order. The address furnished is as follows:

“Hon'ble Chief Information Commissioner,

Information Commission,

Room No. 305, 2nd floor, B wing,

August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,

New Delhi 11 00 66.”

After providing the address as above, it is further stated in Ext. P3 that as per Section 19(3) of the Act, Second Appeal against the decision of the First Appellate Authority lies before the Chief Information Commissioner at the address aforesaid and the same shall be submitted within 90 days of receipt of the order.

3. As informed by the 2nd respondent in Ext. P3, the petitioner prepared a Second Appeal and forwarded the same to the Chief Information Commissioner by Speed Post at the address furnished in Ext. P3. The same was returned to the petitioner by the postal authority stating that the addressee cannot be located. According to the petitioner, the address furnished to the petitioner in Ext. P3 by the 2nd respondent was not proper and correct and such wrong address was furnished to him willfully and deliberately and therefore, the 2nd respondent is liable to pay penalty under Section 20 of the Act. It is also stated that since the 3rd respondent CPIO has failed to furnish information within the period provided under Section 7(1) of the Act, he is also liable to be punished under Section 20 of the Act. The petitioner has, therefore, filed this writ petition for the following reliefs:

“i) Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to pay the penalty as contemplated under section 20 of the Right To Information Act, 2005.

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction directing the 3rd respondent to pay the penalty as contemplated under section 20 of the Right To Information Act, 2005.

iii) To declare the information given by the 2nd respondent is knowingly given incorrect information.”

4. Can the petitioner invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for direction to the CPIO and the appellate authority to pay penalty as contemplated under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005?

5. The 2nd respondent, while rejecting the request of the petitioner for information vide Ext. P3, had communicated to him the particulars of the appellate authority and the period within which an appeal against such rejection has to be preferred. According to the petitioner, the address of the appellate authority furnished to him was wrong and therefore, the postal article was returned with the endorsement that the addressee cannot be located. The petitioner contends that wrong address was willfully and deliberately furnished to him by the 2nd respondent and therefore, the 2nd respondent is liable to pay penalty under Section 20 of the Act. It is also contended that, since the 3rd respondent CPIO has failed to furnish information within the period provided under Section 7(1) of the Act, the 3rd respondent is liable to pay penalty under Section 20 of the Act.

6. Chapter V of the Act deals with powers and f