IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-3801-2016 Date of Decision : 01.12.2025 KISHORE LUTHRA .....Petitioner VERSUS STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION & ORS.

....Respondents CWP-5319-2016 KISHORE LUTHRA .....Petitioner VERSUS STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION & ORS.

....Respondents CWP-5380-2016 KISHORE LUTHRA .....Petitioner VERSUS STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION & ORS.

....Respondents CWP-5431-2016 KISHORE LUTHRA .....Petitioner VERSUS STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION & ORS.

....Respondents CWP-5438-2016 KISHORE LUTHRA .....Petitioner VERSUS STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION & ORS.

....Respondents CWP-5320-2016 KISHORE LUTHRA .....Petitioner VERSUS STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION & ORS.

....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present : Mr. Puneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sahil R. Bakshi, AAG, Punjab for respondent no.1 None for respondent no.2 Mr. Kuldeep Chaudhary,Advocate and Mr. Tribhuwan Singla, Advocate for respondent no.3.

Mr. Piyush Khanna, Advocate, for respondent no.4 in all cases. KULDEEP TIWARI , J.(Oral)

1. With the consent of all the parties involved, all the six writ petitions are being taken up together for their final adjudication, as vide the impugned orders of even date, six different complaints, pertaining to different subjects of information sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005, have been decided separately, imposing a penalty of Rs.25,000/- in each complaint case. For the sake brevity, the facts are being culled out from CWP-3801 of 2016, for apt adjudication.

2. Through the instant petition, a challenge is thrown to the order dated 21.01.2016 (Annexure P-48) passed by the State Information Commission (respondent no.1), wherethrough, the petitioner-State Public Information Officer (Nodal) (SPIO), was burdened with a penalty of Rs.25,000/- (in each application), as he was found guilty of denying information/supplying incomplete information, to the applicant/

respondent no.2.

3. A perusal of case file reveals that till date despite service, respondent no.2 (applicant), who is the main contesting party to the instant lis, has not caused appearance. It seems that he is not interested in defending instant matter, therefore, he is ordered to be proceeded against ex parte.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, was appointed as SPIO (Nodal Officer), in the Department of the Punjab Technical University, vide order dated 03.03.2015 (Annexure P-4). He further submits that vide the abovesaid order, for the each department of the said university, either an Additional SPIO or a SPIO, were also appointed, however, petitioner's work was only to accept the RTI applications, and then transmit them to the concerned departmental SPIO for collection of information, and thereafter, supply the collected information to the applicants. Therefore, the petitioner was, entirely, dependent upon the informations provided by the SPIOs of respective departments.

5. He next submits that in the instant matter, earlier an RTI application was filed seeking information for the academic sessions of 2005 to 2014 for the PAN India functions. In response, a relevant information comprising of more than 1700 pages was supplied to respondent no.2/applicant. Subsequently, respondent no.2, filed various applications seeking the same information State-wise. The said applications were duly transmitted to the SPIO (Accounts Department) and the SPIO (Distance Education Departments), with a direction to supply the requisite information in accordance of RTI Act, 2005.

6. He also submits that there may have been some delay in supplying the information, however, considering the volume of information, and the manner in which it was sought, such delay was bound to occur.

7. He further argues that now the entire information has already been provided to respondent no.2/applicant, and there is no dispute in this regard.

8. He, in addition, submits that respondent no.2/applicant, has never opted to cause appearan