Imposition of penalty for delay in supplying information under the Right to Information Act is void if the decision-making process violated principles of natural justice by not considering the show cause reply.

JUDGMENT :

K.R. Mohapatra, J.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Mr. S.S.K. Nayak, learned counsel and his associates taking consent from the previous counsel files Vakalatnama in Court today on behalf of the Petitioner. Vakalatnama so filed is taken on record.

3. This writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 24^th August, 2011 (Annexure-2) passed by the Odisha Information Commission, Bhubaneswar (for brevity ‘the Commission’) in Second Appeal No.284 of 2008, whereby exercising the power under Section 20 (1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for brevity ‘the Act’), the Commission imposed a cost of Rs.12,750/- on the Petitioner for causing fifty one days’ delayin supplying the information to the applicant, namely, Prasanna Kumar Mishra-Opposite Party No.5.

4. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned order under Annexure-2 suffers from non- consideration of material facts and is in violation of principles of natural justice. Elaborating his submission, Mr. Nayak, learned counsel submits that the Petitioner was the Ex-Controller of Execution of Board of Secondary Education, Odisha during the relevant period, i.e., from 13^th November, 2007 to 1^st October, 2008. The Petitioner is no way responsible to supply the information to the Opposite Party No.5, as he was neither the Public Information Officer (PIO) nor the referral PIO. The entire records from which information was sought for were in the custody of the Secretary and President of Board of Secondary Education. The Petitioner was only responsible to conduct the examination.

5. He further submits that the show cause reply submitted by the Petitioner to the notice under Section 20 (1) of the Act was not taken into consideration by the Commission in the decision making process. It is his submission that basing upon the report of the First Appellate Authority, the Commission formed an opinion that there was fifty one days’ delay in supplying the information. The said report of the First Appellate Authority was never supplied to the Petitioner, which formed basis of imposition of penalty. As such, the decision making process of imposition of penalty on the Petitioner is vitiated. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned order under Annexure-2 so far it relates to imposition of penalty on him.

6. Mr. Dash, learned counsel appearing for the Commission vehemently objects to the above. It is strenuously urged that the Commission on scrutiny of record and giving ample opportunity to the parties, passed the impugned order. At no point of time, the Petitioner had ever sought for supply of the copy of the report of the Secretary-cum-First Appellate Authority. Thus, the allegation of violation of principles of natural justice is not correct. Notice under Section 20 (1) of the Act was served on the Petitioner before taking up the proceeding to impose penalty on him along with others. Hence, it cannot be said that the decision making process under Section 20 (1) of the Act is vitiated. He, however, submits that in the event, an adjournment is granted, the Commission can produce the records for just adjudication of the writ petition. He, however, prays for dismissal of the writ petition submitting that there is no illegality in imposing the penalty on the Petitioner.

7. Taking note of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the Petitioner was the Controller of examination of Board of Secondary Education, Odisha during 13^th November, 2007 to 1^st October, 2008. During that period, the Opposite Party No.5 sought for information, i.e., to supply the answer scripts of History, Geography and Third Language Sanskrit. Admittedly, there was some delay in supply the answer scripts to the Opposite Party No.5. The question that arises for consideration, as to whether the Petitioner has any contribution in obstructing supply of information for which the delay occurred in supplying the same. Pursuant