Non-compliance with the orders of the State Information Commission and failure to appear before the Commission despite being properly noticed can lead to the dismissal of a petition and the imposition of penalties.

JUDGMENT

Vivek Agarwal, J. - Petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved of order dated 11/10.11.2022 issued by the Section Officer, Madhya Pradesh State Information Commission.

2. Petitioner's contention is that P.I.O. had rejected the application made by the appellant Sushil Kumar Mishra under RTI informing him that third party information cannot be supplied to him. Thereafter, appeal which was filed by Sushil Kumar Mishra was allowed by the First Appellate Authority and had directed the P.I.O. to supply information upto 07.11.2019.

3. Shri S.P. Rai has drawn attention of this Court to Annexure P-6 communication dated 05.07.2022 made by the present petitioner to point out that information as was sought by the appellant was provided to him vide communication dated 12.12.2019 but, later on, he moved an amendment application and sought information for two years for which though appellant was informed to approach the Office of P.I.O. on 06.06.2022 but on 13.06.2022, he appeared in the Office of the Executive Engineer and refuse to accept the information, thereafter appeared on 20.06.2022 and obtained complete information.

4. However, neither the communication asking the appellant to appear on 06.06.2022 is brought on record nor the noting in the order-sheet to show that on 13.06.2022 appellant had appeared and refuse to take information. Even the note-sheet dated 20.06.2022 is not produced to show that what was the provocation for him to appear just after seven days of his refusal and how authorities were obliged to supply him information, he had refused to accept that information on 13.06.2022. Thus, it prima facie appears that petitioner Manoj Kumar Tiwari is trying to complicate the matter by resorting to falsehood.

5. It was required for him to approach this Court with clean hands and should have produced all the necessary documents.

6. Shri S.P. Rai submits that order dated 11.11.2022 was not supplied to him in complete and information was sought from the State Information Commission vide communication dated 14.12.2022 which he could not file as he has received the same today itself.

7. This petition was filed on 11.12.2022. Impugned order Annexure P-1 was received by the petitioner on 23.11.2022 as there is a seal and acknowledgment over it, therefore, petitioner should have sought information prior to filing of the petition but it appears that as an after thought he has sent a D.O. dated 14.12.2022. That D.O. too is not addressed to the proper authority. There is no mention of the authority to which it is addressed, normally said D.O. should have been addressed to the Registrar of the M.P. Information Commission but it has been addressed directly to the M.P. Information Commission without making mention of the name of the Registrar. In any case, the fact of the matter is that there was a notice available with the petitioner for hearing before the State Information Commission. Notice was issued on 29.07.2022, it appears from the impugned order Annexure P-1, that petitioner had not appeared before the Commission when the said order came to be passed. No reason is assigned as to why petitioner did not appear before the State Information Commissioner on the date so fixed by the State Information Commission i.e. 30.08.2022.

8. At this stage, Shri S.P. Rai submits that an intimation was sent to the Commission that due to Panchayat Elections it was not possible to appear but perusal of Annexure P-8 reveals that, that is a communication dated 18.07.2022 showing his inability to appear before the Commission on 19.07.2022 thereafter no communication is annexed along with the petition to show that any communication was made by the petitioner to the authorities of the State Information Commission informing them his inability to appear on 30.08.2022. Thus, it is evident that petitioner is trying to prolong the matter and after being held prima facie guilty of not following the orders of the State Information Commission he is trying to