The main legal point established in the judgment is that non-compliance with the statutory mandate of supplying information within the specified time under the Right to Information Act, 2005 can lead to the imposition of penalties under Section 20(1) of the Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder, the order dated 27.07.2012 passed in Appeal No. 1487 of 2011 by the State Information Commission is under challenge wherein penalty of Rs. 20,000/- has been imposed in exercise of power conferred under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2005) to be realized from the salary of the petitioner in four equal installments @ Rs.5,000/- per month.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that while posted as Executive Engineer was also assigned with the duty to function as the Public Information Officer under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

The writ petitioner while posted as such, received application by the respondent no.3 seeking certain information as would appear from said application appended at page-21 which is part of Annexure-1 series.

The information so required since has not been supplied, therefore, the remedy available under the Act as under first proviso to Section 19 of the Act, 2005 has been invoked by filing an appeal in the nature of first appeal but the same having been rejected, second appeal was preferred before the State Information Commission in view of the provision of Section 19 (3) of the Act, 2005.

The complaint made before the Commission that although the information required to be supplied as per the mandate of the statute as under Section 7 of the Act, 2005 is to be supplied within the period of 30 days but the same has not been supplied, therefore, the respondent no.3 was compelled to prefer second appeal before the State Information Commission.

The State Information Commission has issued notice upon the petitioner calling upon as to why penalty be not imposed in exercise of power conferred under Section 20(1) of the Act, 2005.

The petitioner has responded to the aforesaid notice but the same, according to the petitioner, has not properly been considered and the order has been passed on 27.07.2012 holding the petitioner guilty of the non-compliance of the information required to be furnished to the respondent no.3, therefore, the penalty of Rs.20,000/- has been imposed.

The petitioner being aggrieved with the said order is before this Court by filing the instant writ petition.

3. Mr. K. K. Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to impress upon the Court by referring to a document appended at page-20 of Annexure-1 series which is a letter bearing No. 278 dated 27.04.2011 and has submitted that the Commission has not appreciated the fact in right perspective since the information sought for by the respondent no.3 vide application dated 26.04.2011 has been furnished on the following day, i.e., on 27.04.2011.

It has been submitted by referring to page-23 of the Annexure-1 series that the aforesaid information was supplied by way of certificate of posting which has been appended therein.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the communication dated 23.12.2011 appended as Annexure-2 to the writ petition and has submitted that even on 23.12.2011 the said information was supplied to the respondent no.3.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that not only that information was supplied on 27.04.2011 but thereafter also information was supplied as would appear from the communication dated 16.03.2012 appended as Annexure-3 to the writ petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in the backdrop of the aforesaid submission, supported by the relevant documents, has contended that the order passed by the State Information Commission requires interference by quashing and setting it aside.

7. Per contra, Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, learned counsel for the State Information Commission has vehemently opposed the aforesaid ground by making submission that there is no error in the order passed by the State Information Commission since the Commission has come to conclusive finding after going across the records tha