Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
Block Development Officer, Paonta Sahib - Petitioner
Versus
State Chief Information Commissioner & ors. - Respondents
CWP No. 6072 of 2012
Decided On : 27-06-2018
Right to Information Act - Penalty Imposed on Public Information Officer - Section 6(3) - Section 20(1)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Public Information Officer, was penalized for delay in furnishing information sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The petitioner sought quashing of the penalty order, claiming no delay on his part.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's lackadaisical attitude and failure to adhere to the provisions of the RTI Act led to the delay in furnishing information. The court dismissed the petition, stating that ignorance of the law is not an excuse and upheld the penalty imposed.
Issues: Delay in furnishing information under the RTI Act, petitioner's adherence to the provisions of the Act, and the reasonableness of the penalty imposed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that ignorance of the law is not an excuse, and the petitioner, as a Public Information Officer, is deemed to have knowledge of the RTI Act. The court also emphasized the importance of adhering to the provisions of the Act and upheld the penalty based on the petitioner's lackadaisical attitude.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the court upheld the penalty imposed on the petitioner.
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
1. The petitioner, who at the relevant time, happened to be the Public Information Officer, was imposed a penalty of Rs. 7000/- by the State Chief Information Commissioner and aggrieved thereby has filed the instant writ petition seeking quashing of the said order dated 29.10.2011 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned order’).
2. The facts, in brief, are that respondent No. 2 filed an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short the ‘Act’) to the Public Information Officer-cum-Block Development Officer (for short PIO), Paonta Sahib asking for census population for the year 2001 of the places mentioned in the said application.
3. The petitioner, as observed above, was posted as the Block Development Officer and vide his letter dated 01.02.2011 had returned the application to the petitioner on the ground that the said information could not be supplied by his office. Respondent No. 2 assailed the action of the petitioner by filing a complaint before respondent No. 1 which was allowed by respondent No. 1 vide its order dated 29.03.2011 wherein it was observed that the petitioner while returning the application filed by respondent No. 2 had not adhered to the provisions of the Act i.e. Section 6(3) and should have passed a speaking order with regard to the non-availability of the information sought and should have transferred the application to the relevant PIO for necessary action.
4. Consequent to the aforesaid order, the petitioner took steps for transfer of the application to the Municipal Council, Paonta Sahib vide his letter dated 03.06.2011 with the request to provide the said information. On 04.06.2011, the petitioner called for explanation of Shri Desh Raj, Panchayat Inspector, Block Development, Paonta Sahib, as to why he had not taken steps for providing the information after the receipt of order dated 29.03.2011 of State Chief Information Commissioner on 07.04.2011. On 09.06.2011, the office of respondent No.1 issued letter to the petitioner enclosing therein the copy of the complaint filed by respondent No. 2 and the petitioner was asked to appear in person. Consequently, on 18.06.2011, the PIO-cum-Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Paonta Sahib informed the petitioner that the information as sought for by respondent No. 2 had been supplied to him.
5. Upon this development, the petitioner vide his letter dated 27.06.2011 directed Shri Desh Raj, Panchayat Inspector, Development Block Paonta Sahib and Shri Bal Mukund Aggarwal, Panchayat Secretary, to attend the office of respondent No. 1 on 28.06.2011 and at the same time issued letter to the Registrar, State Information Commission, informing that information as sought for stands supplied to respondent No. 2 by the concerned PIO. However, on 28.06.2011, respondent No. 1 imposed penalty of Rs.14,000/- upon the petitioner on the ground of 56 days delay in furnishing information to respondent No.2.
6. This action of respondent No. 1 was assailed before this Court in writ petition in CWP No. 8418 of 2011 and the same was disposed of by this Court vide its order dated 12.10.2011 by permitting the petitioner to file a detailed reply to the notice that had been issued by respondent No. 1. Accordingly, the petitioner filed representation before respondent No. 1 and the same was partly allowed by respondent No. 1 vide its order dated 18.11.2011 and as against the penalty of Rs.14,000/-, the petitioner was imposed a penalty of Rs.7000/-.
7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has filed the instant petition on the ground that the order passed by respondent No. 1 is unfair, unjust and arbitrary and that there was no delay whatsoever on the part of the petitioner to furnish the information as sought for by respondent No. 2.
8. Respondent No. 2 even though served has not chosen to put in appearance and was ordered to be proceeded ex parte vide order dated 08.04.2013. As regards respondent No. 1 even though it has put in app
AI
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
