IMPORTANT POINT
The State Information Commission must actively ensure compliance with information requests under the RTI Act, rather than solely imposing penalties for non-compliance.

JUDGMENT :

1. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and Shri Shikhar Anand, who appears for the Respondent no.1- State Information Commission and Shri Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava, who appears on behalf of the Respondents no.2- LDA.

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following prayers:-

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent no.2 to provide the information sought by the petitioner.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 07.02.2024 and direct the Respondent No.2 to pay the fine imposed on it to the petitioner.

(iii) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just, fit and proper under the circumstances of the case."

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he had made an application under the Right to Information Act on 03.04.2021 to the Public Information Officer of the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) in which information was sought on Nine points. Information that was given by the LDA was incomplete. The petitioner approached the First Appellate Authority who passed an order on 03.04.2021 allowing the Appeal and directing the Public Information Officer to provide all information as was requested by the petitioner in his RTI application within 15 days of the order. However, such order was not complied with. The petitioner was forced to file a Second Appeal before the Respondent no.1 pointing out the information that was not provided by the Public Information Officer despite the order passed by the First Appellate Authority. The State Information Commission repeatedly passed orders directing the Respondent no.2 to furnish the information on 31.10.2022, 05.06.2023 and 11.12.2023. The Respondent no.2, however, refused to provide such information and also refused to appear before the Respondent no.1. The Respondent no.1 then proceeded to pass impugned order dated 07.02.2024 directing the Respondent no.2 to pay a penalty of Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner and also provided that such penalty shall be deducted from the salary of the Public Information Officer of the LDA and shall be deposited under the relevant head maintained for the said purpose by the Account Section. It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is still aggrieved as the information that he had sought, was not provided by the Respondent no.2. It is also not clear whether the order dated 07.02.2024 was challenged by the Respondent no.2 anywhere.

4. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Respondent no.1 did not direct the Respondent no.2 to provide the required information to the petitioner in the order passed finally on 07.02.2024 disposing of his Second Appeal and the Commission has abicated its responsibility and has instead imposed a fine which is to be deposited with the Commission itself.

5. The counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent no.1 has pointed out the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court on 20.08.2015 in Writ Petition No.7523 (M/B) of 2015 [Lok Nyayarth Sanstha thru. its General Secretary Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others], where this Court after considering the arguments raised by the petitioner, who was the General Secretary of the said Lok Nyayarth Sanstha, has noted that the grievance of the petitioner was that non-disclosure of information under the Act can only result in imposition of fine on the errant Public Information Officer and no further action is envisaged to ensure disclosure of information sought. The Court observed that whether a more stringent provision should be made, is a matter of Legislative Policy and the Court cannot direct that the Provision which has been made by Parliament should be amended or that it should be re-framed. Whether a better provision for compliance and for enforcing the statutory provisions for the disclosure of information should be made, is a matter for