Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J
J. Umesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P11 order passed by the State Information Commission, Kerala (for short 'the Commission') whereby the petitioner was imposed with a penalty of Rs.3,000/- under section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter 'the RTI Act' for short) for failure to furnish information to the applicant within the time specified under section 7(1) of the RTI Act.
2. The petitioner, while working as Circle Inspector of Police, Ranni Police Station, was designated as Public Information Officer under the RTI Act. The 5th respondent made Ext.P1 application dated 22.04.2014 under the RTI Act seeking nine items of information. In reply to Ext.P1, the petitioner gave Ext.P2 on 20.05.2014. As regards the information 7, 8 and 9, the 5th respondent was required to furnish the receipt of payment of fee of Rs.6/- in the treasury. On receiving Ext.P2, the 5th respondent paid Rs.6/- in the government treasury, Ranni and intimated the same to the petitioner vide Ext.P3 letter dated 21.05.2014. On receiving Ext.P3, the petitioner searched for the documents sought for in Ext.P1 application. However, the documents could not be traced as they were m
Public Information Officers must ensure document availability before requesting fees under the RTI Act; failure to do so can result in penalties for delays in providing information.
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.
Officers can only be penalized for information delays if they were in charge at the time of the request; newly appointed officers are not liable for prior delays.
Imposing a penalty under RTI Act, 2005 requires the Public Information Officer to be given a chance to be heard, and liability under Section 20 cannot apply retroactively to an officer who was not in....
Imposition of penalty and compensation are distinct liabilities under the Right to Information Act, and relief can only be granted based on a legally protected right capable of being judicially enfor....
Public Information Officer is not liable for delays not caused during their tenure; penalties require evidence of wrongdoing and loss to justify compensation under the Right to Information Act.
The court established that the penalty under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 cannot be imposed as a matter of right when the delay in furnishing information is not deliberate and a r....
A PIO's obligation to provide information under RTI is contingent upon the requestor's payment of prescribed fees; failure to fulfill this does not justify a penalty.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
