Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
Janak Raj Sharma, son of Late Om Prakash Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Bharat Coking Coal Limited, through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.)
1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs:
“i. For quashing of the order dated 17.03.09 passed by the Central Information Commission in Case No. CIC/AT/C/2007/00390 whereby the Review Petition filed by the Petitioner for review of the order by which a penalty of Rs.25,000/- was imposed on him has been disallowed.
ii. Further for quashing the order dated 01.10.08 passed by the Central Information Commission in F.No.CIC/AT/A/2007/00390 whereby penalty of Rs.25,000/- was imposed on the Petitioner.
iii. Further for reliving the Petitioner from penalty of Rs.25,000/- imposed on the Petitioner by the Central Information Commission in the facts and circumstances of the case. …”
2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition which requires to be enumerated, read as under:
The Petitioner, at the relevant time, was working and posted as Deputy Chief Mining Engineer / Project Officer at E.J. Area, B.C.C.L., Dhanbad.
On 11.09.2006 one Brig. Sri P.K. Kaul (Rtd.) sought some information through R.T.I. from B.C.C.L. vide Application No.7630/PKK/EJ/RTI/2SDG/1. On 2
The Right to Information Act mandates accountability for public officers in providing information, and penalties can be imposed for non-compliance.
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.
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....
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.
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,....
(1) There is clear distinction in between “Public Authority” within meaning of Section 2(h) and “Public Information Officer” within meaning of Section 2(m) of Right to Information Act, 2005.(2) Award....
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
