Public Information Officers must ensure document availability before requesting fees under the RTI Act; failure to do so can result in penalties for delays in providing information.

JUDGMENT :

1. The writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P11 order passed by the State Information Commission, Kerala (for short 'the Commission') whereby the petitioner was imposed with a penalty of Rs.3,000/- under section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter 'the RTI Act' for short) for failure to furnish information to the applicant within the time specified under section 7(1) of the RTI Act.

2. The petitioner, while working as Circle Inspector of Police, Ranni Police Station, was designated as Public Information Officer under the RTI Act. The 5^th respondent made Ext.P1 application dated 22.04.2014 under the RTI Act seeking nine items of information. In reply to Ext.P1, the petitioner gave Ext.P2 on 20.05.2014. As regards the information 7, 8 and 9, the 5^th respondent was required to furnish the receipt of payment of fee of Rs.6/- in the treasury. On receiving Ext.P2, the 5^th respondent paid Rs.6/- in the government treasury, Ranni and intimated the same to the petitioner vide Ext.P3 letter dated 21.05.2014. On receiving Ext.P3, the petitioner searched for the documents sought for in Ext.P1 application. However, the documents could not be traced as they were misplaced due to the shifting of the police station to the new building. Therefore, the petitioner issued Ext.P4 letter to the 5^th respondent informing that the documents are misplaced and requested for time to furnish the same. The petitioner also informed that if the 5^th respondent is not satisfied with the reply, she can prefer an appeal before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruvalla. In the meantime, the petitioner was transferred from Ranni Police Station. The 5^th respondent filed an appeal before the Dy.SP Thiruvalla. The petitioner's successor in office Sri. Rajappan found out the documents as per the initiative of the petitioner within 85 days of the application and furnished the same to the 5^th respondent through the office of the appellate authority without any additional payment. However, after receiving the said documents, the 5^th respondent preferred Ext.P5 complaint to the Commission under section 18(1) of the RTI Act on 24.01.2015. In Ext.P5, it is stated that the petitioner wilfully delayed furnishing the information and is liable to be punished under section 20(1) and (2) of the RTI Act. To Ext.P5, Sri. Rajappan, the successor in office, filed Ext.P6 statement before the Commission stating that the documents sought for were misplaced and the delay was not willful.

3. The Commission therefore observed that non-furnishing of documents after asking the 5^th respondent to pay Rs.6/- in the treasury and after remitting the said amount is not justifiable and further actions have to be taken against the petitioner. Accordingly, by Ext.P7, the Commission sought for explanation from the petitioner. The petitioner submitted Ext.P10 explanation stating that the petitioner asked the 5^th respondent to remit Rs.6/- towards the fees for the copy of the documents on the belief that the documents sought for are available in the record room. However, the same could not be traced when the treasury receipt was produced. The petitioner sought for time to furnish the documents and the documents were traced out from the old record room and the same were furnished to the 5^th respondent by the petitioner's successor in office. The petitioner stated that there was no willful default in furnishing information to the 5^th respondent.

4. The Commission, by Ext.P11 order, observed that without ensuring the availability of the documents sought for, the petitioner ought not have informed the 5^th respondent that the documents would be furnished on remittance of fee of Rs.6/- in the treasury. When the remittance was made, it is not proper for an officer to inform the applicant that the documents are misplaced. Since there was delay in disposal of request for information within the time stipulated under section 7(1), the petitioner is liable for a penalty of Rs.2