IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 10.03.2026 Tejbir Singh Sidhu ….Petitioner Versus State Information Commission, Punjab and another ….Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Nitin Kaushal, Advocate, and Mr. Sahil, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Siddharth Sandhu, AAG, Punjab.

****

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner, through the instant writ petition, assails the order dated 06.08.2015 (Annexure P-13), vide which, the State Information Commission, Punjab, not only, imposed a penalty of Rs.25,000/- upon him, being the Public Information Officer, but also passed a direction to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him. Further, a compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- was also awarded to the applicant-information seeker.

2. As per office report, notice issued to contesting-respondent No.2(i) was issued through publication, but none is present on his behalf to pursue the matter. Therefore, respondent No.2(i) is proceeded against ex parte.

3. Narrating the factual backdrop of the lis, which led the petitioner to the current stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, initially, son of the applicant, (Mr. H.S. Hundal), preferred an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, the ‘Act of 2005’), seeking some information in relation to L-50 licenses. Upon consideration of the application, some of the information was divulged, but certified copies regarding the information at serial No. 1 to 10 was denied, vide order dated 29.01.2014 (AnnexureP-2/T), on the ground that, it related to a third party, which was upheld till the State Information Commission, vide order dated 14.05.2014 (Annexure P-4). Whereafter, another application was filed by Mr. Amrik Singh (father of Mr. H.S. Hundal), on 12.06.2014 (Annexure P-5). Since, in the said application as well, the sought for information was substantially identical, it was again decided in the same terms, vide order dated 01.07.2014 (Annexure P-6/T). Aggrieved, the applicant availed of the remedy of first appeal, which too was decided in the light of the earlier dictum, vide order dated 23.07.2014 (Annexure P-7/T). Conversely, in this round, the State Information Commission arrived at a divergent view, and directed to supply the requisite information. Not just that, the Commission also reached a conclusion that the Public Information Officer deliberately denied the information, therefore, a penalty of Rs.25,000/- was imposed upon him, besides directing initiation of disciplinary proceedings, vide the order under challenge.

4. While adverting to the merits of the matter, he submits that there was no deliberate or malafide attempt on the part of the petitioner to deny the information to the applicant. Rather, he was guided by the earlier verdict drawn by the State Information Commission, as referred to above, and even the information, prima facie, relates to a third party. He asserts that the petitioner, while exercising quasi-judicial authority, acted strictly in terms of the Act of 2005. However, the State Information Commission, without comprehending the abovesaid decisive factors, passed the impugned order, which is liable to the set aside.

5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record.

6. Before embarking upon the merits of the case, the sought for information, which is the fulcrum of the dispute, is required to be gazed at:-

“1. Certified copies of all L-50 licences issued/recommended by this office since 01.01.2003 to 31.12.2013;

2. Certified copies of all applications for these licences along with all documents for these applications;

3. Certified copies of all letters/correspondence of recommendations with DETC Ferozepur for issuance of these licences;

4. Certified copies of all pending requests/applications for these licences;

5. Certified copies of all pending requests/applications for these licences;

6. Certified copies of all documents relating t