Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
S. Krishnan – Appellant
Versus
The State Information Commissioner Tamil Nadu Information Commission & Others – Respondents
W.P. No. 4908 of 2015 & MP. Nos. 1, 2, 1, 2 of 2015
Decided on : 18-07-2022
Right to Information Act - Penalty Imposition - Section 20(1)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, as the Public Information Officer, refused to act upon the petition submitted by the 3rd respondent, stating that the information sought did not fall within the purview of the Act. The 1st respondent directed the issuance of the documents pertaining to the transfer of patta to the 3rd respondent, which the petitioner failed to furnish, leading to penalty imposition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's rejection of the petition as a complaint was not acceptable, and there was no reasonable cause for the petitioner to disregard the specific details and document copy sought by the 3rd respondent. The court upheld the penalty imposed under Section 20(1) of the Act.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner's refusal to furnish the requested information without reasonable cause warranted penalty imposition under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Public Information Officer is expected to carefully read the application and provide the information to the extent possible, and that the penalty provision under Section 20(1) applies when information is refused to be received without reasonable cause.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed, and the court found no illegality or infirmity in the Order passed by the 1st respondent.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the first respondent in his proceedings Case No. 7384/Enquiry/ B/2013 (50696/B/2013) dated 29.1.15 and to quash the same.)
1. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the Order passed by the 1st respondent through proceedings dated 29.1.2015, wherein a penalty was imposed under Section 20 (1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and the petitioner was directed to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- and this amount was directed to be deducted from his salary.
2. The petitioner joined as the Deputy Tahsildar in the headquarters on 15.5.2012 and by virtue of his post, he became the Information Officer. The 3rd respondent submitted a petition seeking for certain information under the Act on 03.05.2012 and this petition was placed before the petitioner on 19.05.2012. On going through the petition, the petitioner found that the petition was more in the nature of a complaint involving a family dispute. Hence, the petitioner through a letter dated 19.05.2012, sent an information to the 3rd respondent to the effect that the information sought for does not come within the purview of the Act.
3. The 3rd respondent seems to have sent another petition to the 2nd respondent. This petition was forwarded to the Public Information Officer at Bhavani Taluk. Once again this petition was rejected on the ground that the information does not come within the purview of the Act.
4. The 3rd respondent filed an appeal before the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent, after holding an enquiry, passed an order on 11.12.2014. By virtue of this Order, penalty proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner gave his explanation on 02.01.2015. On receipt of the same, the 1st respondent passed the impugned Order dated 29.01.2015 and directed recovery of a sum of Rs. 25,000/- from the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition was filed before this Court.
5. Heard Mr.S.Vijayakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan, learned counsel for R1, Mr.Tippusulthan, learned Government Advocate for R2 and Mr.MA.P.Thangavel, learned counsel for R3.
6. In the present case, the petitioner as the Public Information Officer, refused to act upon the petition submitted by the 3rd respondent mainly on the ground that the petition was more in the nature of a complaint and while giving such a complaint, some information was sought for. The petitioner on going through the application, informed the 3rd respondent that the information sought for will not come within the purview of Section 2 (f) of the Act. The 3rd respondent filed an appeal before the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent through proceedings dated 11.12.2014, directed the issuance of the documents pertaining to the transfer of patta to the 3rd respondent.
7. According to the 1st respondent, the petitioner ought to have furnished the details. According to the petitioner, the information sought for did not fall within the purview of Section 2 (f) of the Act. Under such circumstances, it has to be seen if the Order passed by the 1st respondent imposing penalty comes within the scope of Section 20 (1) of the Act.
8. A plain reading of Section 20 (1) of the Act, makes it obvious that the Commission could impose penalty where an application for information is refused to be received without any reasonable cause or where an information has not been furnished within the time specified under Section 7 (1) of the Act or where the request for information is denied with a mala fide intention or an incorrect or incomplete or misleading information is given. The maximum penalty that can be imposed under this provision is Rs. 25,000/-.
9. In the present case, the petitioner, on reading the application submitted by the 3rd respondent came to a conclusion that it does not satisfy Sec
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
