IMPORTANT POINT
Right to Information--Harassment--Penalty--Penalty can be imposed only if there is no reasonable cause for not furnishing information within 30 days--Right to seek information not to be extended to extent that even if file is not available for good reasons still steps are required to be taken by office to procure the file to supply information.

HEMANT GUPTA, J.

1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 23-8-2007 (Annexure P-13), whereby the State Information Commission, Haryana, has imposed a penalty of Rs.10,000/- on the petitioner for the lapse on his part, to be recovered in four monthly instalments. The commission has also imposed a costs of Rs.2000/- on account of considerable harassment meted out to respondent No.3.

2. Respondent No.3 sought certain information in respect of plot No.609, Sector 8, Panchkula. The said application was received in the Estate Office on 29-1-2007. The information sought was in respect of the steps taken for transfer of the aforesaid plot in the name of Rajiv Arora (hereinafter referred to as the applicant); Sandeep Arora and Anurag Arora. The aforesaid plot No.609, Sector 8, Panchkula was originally allotted to one Shri Madan Lal. A Power of attorney was executed by Shri Madan Lal in favour of Shri Ram Sarup, father of the applicant on 31-1-1990. The said Power of attorney was cancelled on 15-11-1996 and a fresh General Power of Attorney was executed in favour of one B. R. Verma. The cancellation of the Power of Attorney in favour of father of the applicant was alleged to be an act of fraud. Shri Madan Lal was informed by the Estate Office that the plot cannot be transferred in the name of B. R. Verma, Shri Madan Lal filed a civil suit on 20-7-1998, challenging the action of the estate Officer, refusing to transfer plot in favour of B. R. Verma. The said civil suit was dismissed on 8-2-2006. The first appeal was dismissed on 15-6-2006. Madan lal filed a second appeal, the information of which was given to the Estate Officer by Shri madan Lal on 14-2-2007.

3. As per the petitioner, the office file of plot No.609, Sector 8, Panchkula, was with the ICICI Bank in relation to the project of computerization of the official record of the office of Estate Office: 20,000 files, including the file of the plot in question were sent for computerization on 18-12-2006. The files were in the office of ICICI Bank from 18-12-2006 to 22-2-2007 and from 13-3-2007 to 30-3-2007. The information sought by the applicant was supplied on 10-4-2007 after the files were finally returned on 30-3-2007.

4. The applicant filed an appeal to the chief Administrator, HUDA, against the inaction of the Estate Officer on 21-3-2007. The said appeal was fixed for hearing on 17-4-2007 after notice to the present petitioner. The said appeal was disposed of on 17-4-2007 in the absence of respondent No.3, when it was stated that the information sought for has been supplied to the applicant on 10-4-2007. An application was filed by the applicant that he had not received any notice of the hearing of the appeal. The chief Administrator of the HUDA, the Appellate Authority, under the Right to Information Act, disposed of the appeal on 11-6-2007 on the ground that the information has already been supplied and that the applicant is satisfied with the information provided.

5. The applicant has filed an appeal dated 15-4-2008 under Sec.19 (1) of the Act, the notice of which was issued on 17-4-2007. The grievance of the applicant was that no reply has been received from the public Information Officer or from the Appellate Authority within one month. It was the said appeal, which was decided by the state Information Commission on 12-7-2007, holding that the state of affairs as noticed is a sorry reflection on the functioning of the Estate Officer and supervision being exercised in the matter of information given by the Administrator, HUDA. It was also found that the matter is being deliberately delayed and execuses are being offered for not taking action on the application submitted by the applicant. After returning such finding, a notice under Sec.20 (1) of the act was issued to the present petitioner to show cause as to why the penalty @ Rs.250/-for each day of delay, should not be imposed upon him. A notice was also issued under section 19 (8) (b)