Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Rajesh Shankar
Binit Kumar son of Late Rajeshwar Prasad Singh – Appellant
Versus
Jharkhand State Information Commission – Respondent
ORDER :
RAJESH SHANKAR, J.
The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 16.03.2016 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) passed by the Chief Information Commissioner, Ranchi in Appeal No. 1270 of 2015 preferred by the respondent no. 8 which was communicated to all concerned persons including the petitioner vide memo no. 8212 dated 20.04.2016 issued under the signature of Authorised Officer, Jharkhand State Information Commission, Ranchi (the respondent no. 3), whereby a sum of Rs. 10,000/- has been imposed upon the petitioner as penalty under Section 20 (1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short, “the Act, 2005”) to be recovered from his salary in two equal monthly instalments w.e.f. April, 2016.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no. 8 sought certain information on 15.09.2014 from the office of the District Education Officer, Godda and accordingly the erstwhile District Education Officer-cum-Public Information Officer, Godda, directed the erstwhile District Superintendent of Education-cum-District Programme Officer, “Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan”, Godda to provide required information to the respondent no. 8. However, the said in
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....
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.
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.
Public Information Officers can only be penalized under RTI for failures occurring during their tenure when a request was made, not retroactively for former officers' actions.
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....
The main legal point established is that under the Right to Information Act, 2005, a Public Information Officer is not liable for delay in providing information if it is supplied within the required ....
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
