Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
T. Arul Kumar - Appellant
Versus
The Tamil Nadu Information Commission, Represented by its Commissioner, Chennai & Another - Respondents
WP No. 28430 of 2017 & WPMP Nos. 30534 & 30535 of 2017
Decided On : 30-03-2023
Show Cause Notice - Right to Information Act - The court quashed the proceedings of the Tamil Nadu Information Commission, holding that the show cause notice issued to the petitioner was not a final decision, and the petitioner should be provided with an opportunity to defend his case in accordance with the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Executive Officer, was issued a show cause notice by the Tamil Nadu Information Commission for not responding to an application submitted under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the show cause notice was not a final decision and the petitioner should be given an opportunity to defend his case in accordance with the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Issues: The issues revolved around the nature of the show cause notice issued by the Information Commission and whether it constituted a final decision.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the show cause notice was not a final decision and the petitioner should be provided with an opportunity to defend his case in accordance with the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, but the petitioner was granted the opportunity to submit explanations and documents, and the Information Commission was directed to conduct an enquiry and pass final orders expeditiously.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the proceedings of the first respondent in its Case No.SA.10634/D/2016/X dated 10.10.2017 and quash the same.)
1. The proceedings of the first respondent-Tamil Nadu Information Commission dated 10.10.2017, is sought to be quashed in the present writ petition.
2. The petitioner states that he was appointed as an Executive Officer Grade II and he was working as an Executive Officer at Mangalampettai Town Panchayat. He was posted as an Executive Officer In-charge at Pennadam Town Panchayat.
3. During the relevant point of time, an Information Seeker submitted an application seeking information regarding the application submitted by him for Building Plan Approval. Since the said application was not responded in consonance with the Right to Information Act, 2005, the unsatisfactory Information Seeker preferred an appeal before the Tamil Nadu Information Commission.
4. The Tamil Nadu Information Commission based on the files produced by the Public Information Officer, recorded the facts and issued show cause notice to the writ petitioner, asking the petitioner to submit his explanations as to why the punishment should not be imposed. The Information Commission cannot propose for initiation of disciplinary proceedings through Department, but the Information Commission can recommend for departmental disciplinary action.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the order impugned cannot be construed as a show cause notice in view of the specific finding made by the Information Commission The Commission formed a final opinion to impose punishment on the writ petitioner and therefore, the proceedings cannot be construed as show cause notice, since the Commission had pre-determined the issues.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated by stating that immediately after filing of an appeal, the Commission ought to have called the writ petitioner to submit his explanation. Thus the order is to be set aside.
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-Commission objected the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner by stating that the order per se would reveal that this show cause notice issued is in respect of the proposed action. Certain facts recorded based on the files cannot be construed as final information of the State Information Commission.
8. It is only a recording of facts done, based on the files produced by the Public information Officer concerned. Only if a decision is proposed to be initiated, then alone the individuals are called.
9. In the present case, the writ petitioner is called while at the time of recording of files. That apart, the petitioner was asked to explain as to why action should not be initiated against him under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Therefore, the said proceedings need not be construed as final decision and the petitioner has to be provided with an opportunity to defend his case in the manner contemplated under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent made a submission that he got the Building Planning Approval and subsequently, constructed the building. However, the said fact is irrelevant as far as the present impugned order is concerned.
11. Perusal of the order impugned would reveal that the Tamil Nadu Information Commission in clear terms has stated that as per the files, certain facts are traced out. Therefore, the petitioner was asked to submit his explanations on or before 10.11.2017 and in the absence of any such explanations, further proceedings will be initiated under Section 20(1) and 20(2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
12. Therefore, it is only a show cause notice and the cost of Rs.2,000/- imposed in the impugned order is the compensation granted towards the travelling expenditure, which has to be pa
AI
The show cause notice issued by the Information Commission was not a final decision, and the petitioner should be provided with an opportunity to defend his case in accordance with the Right to Infor....
The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the procedures and principles of natural justice under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and held that denial of opportunity to defend the case wa....
Orders directing departmental proceedings must be accompanied by proper reasons and consideration of the explanation given by the concerned officer.
The court established that the penalty under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 cannot be imposed as a matter of right when the delay in furnishing information is not deliberate and a r....
The central legal point established is that the penalty provision under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act applies when information is refused to be received without reasonable cause.
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
