Back
2022 Supreme(Mad) 1793
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S. SRIMATHY, J.
Ponvelraj - Appellant
Versus
The State Information Commissioner, Chennai & Another - Respondent
W.P.(MD). No. 17632 of 2014 & M.P.(MD). No. 1 of 2014
Decided On : 02-06-2022
For the Petitioner:S.S. Thesigan, Advocate. For the Respondents:R1, K.K. Senthil, Advocate, R2, No Appearance.
Proper designation as a Public Information Officer is crucial under the Right to Information Act, and penalties should not be imposed without affording sufficient opportunity to present a case.
Headnote:
Right to Information Act - Designation of Public Information Officer - Act Section 4(1) - Summary: The court discussed the designation of Public Information Officer under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and the imposition of penalty on the petitioner for not providing information. The court held that the petitioner was not designated as a Public Information Officer and therefore, the penalty imposed was quashed. The court emphasized the importance of proper designation under the Act and the need for sufficient opportunity to present a case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Sanitary Inspector, was penalized for not providing information under the Right to Information Act. The petitioner argued that he was not designated as a Public Information Officer and therefore, the penalty was in violation of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was not designated as a Public Information Officer and had not acted as an in-charge Public Information Officer. Therefore, the penalty imposed on the petitioner was quashed.
Issues: Designation of Public Information Officer, Imposition of Penalty
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that proper designation as a Public Information Officer is essential under the Right to Information Act, and the imposition of penalty without sufficient opportunity to present a case was unjust.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned orders imposing penalty were set aside. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
JUDGMENT
(PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in Case no. 47150/Enquiry/D/2011, dated 06.08.2014 and the consequential order passed by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.1308/2011/A1, dated 25.08.2014, quash the same.)
1. This writ petition has been filed to quash the impugned order dated 06.08.2014 and the consequential order, dated 25.08.2014.
2. The petitioner is working as Sanitary Inspector in Kayalpattinam Municipality. The nature of job assigned to the petitioner is to keeping the public health and maintain sanitation in the locality comes under the Municipality. Under the Right to Information Act, 2005, every public authority should designate Public Information Officers within 100 days of the enactment of the Act. Accordingly, the State of Tamil Nadu designated the competent authorities as Public Information Officers. In the Municipal Corporation, the Manager was designated as Public Information Officer and as such they are competent to receive applications and furnish information under the Right to Information Act. In Kayalpattinam Municipality the post of Manager was vacant for a long time and no one was even acting as “In-charge Manager”. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner's post is subordinate to the post of Manager and the petitioner is incompetent to receive applications and provide information under Right to Information Act. As the post was kept vacant for a period from 2010-2013, the other officials who were not designated as Public Information Officers had been advised by their superiors to provide necessary information under the Right to Information Act.
3. One P.M.M.Mohideen of Changanacherry of Kerala State had sought information under the Right to Information Act, regarding the property tax. The applications were addressed to the Public Information Officer, Kayalpattinam Municipality as well as the Public Information Officer cum Municipal Commissioner, Kayalpattinam Municipal Corporation. The information sought was furnished by the Municipal Corporation on 15.03.2011. Not satisfied by the information provided by the Municipality, the above said P.M.M.Mohideen, preferred the appeal in Case No.47150 of 2012 before the first respondent. After enquiry, the first respondent directed the Public Information Officer to provide all the documents sought under the application. Accordingly, the copies of the relevant documents were furnished to P.M.M.Mohideen through his brother. Since the documents were not sent to him directly, the first respondent issued show cause notice to the petitioner and the second respondent, directed the petitioner to reply as to why maximum punishment should not be imposed. As per the instructions of the second respondent, the petitioner appeared before the first respondent and made oral submissions regarding the issue raised in the show cause notice on 22.01.2013. But the first respondent vide his order, dated 06.08.2014, rejected the petitioner's explanation and imposed the maximum penalty of Rs.25,000/- and directed the 2nd respondent to recover the same from the petitioner's salary. Pursuant to the order of the first respondent, dated 06.08.2014, the second respondent vide proceedings, dated 25.08.2014, ordered to recover the penalty amount in five installments.
4. The contention of the petitioner is that the second respondent has passed the above order without affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his case. The specific contention of the petitioner is that he was not the person designated as Public Information Officer in the Municipality and therefore, the said impugned order is in violation of Right to Information Act, 2005.
5. The respondents have not filed any counter and relied on the impugned order.
6. Heard Mr.S.S.Thesigan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.K.Senthil, the
