Harendra Kumar Mishra vs Uttarakhand Information Commission & Others

Alok Singh, J

1) Heard Mr. Sandeep Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. S. C. Bhatt, Advocate for respondent no.3.

2) By means of present writ petition, petitioner seeks following prayer, among others:

"(i) to issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 01.04.2019 passed by respondent no.2 in complaint No.13194/2018 filed by respondent no.3."

3) Brief facts of the case are that on 15.06.2018, the respondent no.3-Smt. Kiran Kumari filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking some information. It is alleged by the petitioner that the petitioner in the capacity of Public Information Officer gave the requisite information, vide letter dated 03.07.2018; the said letter was dispatched to the petitioner through ordinary post, but, the respondent no.3 did not receive the reply of the application; respondent no.3 preferred an appeal on 17.08.2018 before the First Appellate Authority; vide dated 24.09.2018, the First Appellate Authority directed the Public Information Officer to provide information to respondent no.3 within two weeks; despite this, the information was not provided to respondent no.3; thereafter, a second appeal was preferred by respondent no.3 on 21.10.2018; and, even then, the information was not provided to the respondent no.3.

4) Section 20(1) of the RTI Act mandates the Commission to impose a penalty on the PIO where he has, without reasonable cause, refused to receive a RTI application or has not furnished information within the time specified under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act i.e. 30 days or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information, or destroyed information, which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information.

5) Perusal of record reveals that on 15.06.2018, respondent no.3-Smt. Kiran Kumari sought an information under the Right to Information Act, 2005; although, the Public Information Officer has alleged that he gave the requisite information to respondent no.3 vide letter dated 03.07.2018, but it is a fact that respondent no.3 did not receive any reply of her application; the petitioner was only harping about the continuous failure of his subordinate officers (i.e. Sri Himanshu Goswami, Dispatcher and Sri Dinesh Chandra Pathak, Chief Administrative Officer) from whom he seeks assistance; despite the order of the First Appellate Authority, the information was not provided to the respondent no.3; after the order of First Appellate Authority, the petitioner ought to have taken extra precaution in this matter; a second appeal was preferred by respondent no.3 on 21.10.2018; even then, the information was not provided to the respondent no.3; and, moreover, the impugned order has been passed on 01.04.2019, thus, there was reasonable time to provide information to the respondent no.3.

6) Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that the PIO had an administrative responsibility under the RTI Act to provide the correct and complete information in a timely manner. But, he failed to discharge this legal obligation placed upon him under the RTI Act despite receiving order from the First Appellate Authority. If a senior officer who holds the position of a PIO is not sensitive to the continuous failure of his subordinate officers from whom he seeks assistance, it would be considered completely inexcusable and would tantamount to a dereliction of his duties.

7) In view of above, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.