Khumbongmayum Lupenjit Singh vs State Of Manipur And Others

MV Muralidaran, J

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the order dated 27.4.2016 passed by the second respondent and to direct the respondents 3, 4 and 5 to furnish the information sought in the application dated 29.11.2013 submitted by the petitioner.

The case of the petitioner is that he had submitted an application dated 29.11.2013 to the State Public Information Officer/The Additional Director of Education (S), Valley Government of Manipur under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 for furnishing certain information in respect of one Smt. Ningombam Bimola Devi, a retired Headmistress of Kha Imphal Primary School. Based on the application, the Additional Director of Education (S/V) sent a letter dated 04.12.2013 to the fifth respondent requesting to furnish the required information to the petitioner, however, the fifth respondent failed to furnish the information. Thereafter, the petitioner filed first appeal under Section 19 of the said Act on 04.01.2014 before the First Appellate Authority/3rd respondent. On 18.01.2014, the fourth respondent sent a letter to the fifth respondent directing to furnish the information within five days of the receipt of the letter. The petitioner waited for information more than 60 days and as such having no other alternative, approached this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(C) No.352 of 2014. Pending writ petition, the fourth respondent sent a letter dated 24.6.2014 to the petitioner enclosing three pages of Attendance Register of Kha Imphal Primary School thereby stating that the required information sought by the petitioner has been provided by the fifth respondent.

According to the petitioner, the letter of the fourth respondent would reveal that the required information was not furnished within the stipulated time of 30 days as provided under Section 6(1) of the said Act. By an order dated 1.6.2015, W.P.(C) No.352 of 2014 came to be disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to approach respondent No.2 and as such, the petitioner filed a complaint being Complaint Case No.10 of 2016 before the second respondent and the said complaint was disposed of by the second respondent directing the State Public Information Officer (SPIO) to furnish a reply on the RTI application to the complainant indicating availability or otherwise of the information and details of efforts made by the Public Authority for providing the required information.

The further case of the petitioner is that the second respondent deferred the responsibility of respondent No.4 and had totally neglected the provisions under Section 20 of the said Act. Therefore, the official respondents have contravened the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in non-furnishing information or needful communication within the time specified under the Act. The petitioner had also filed W.P.(C) No.481 of 2016 before this Court, but due to some bona fide mistake in the pleading, which cannot be cured by way of amendment, the said petition was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking the relief stated supra.

Respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 have filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that by a letter dated 20.6.2014 the Zonal Education Officer, Wangoi intimated that furnishing of information in respect of all the queries desired by the Department was not practicable as Smt. Ningombam Bimola Devi had recorded her initial only once in the Teachers Attendance Register on 08.5.2002 of Kha Imphal Primary School and also no specific information as to whether she was functioning as a Headmistress for that day or not was mentioned in the Attendance Register and therefore, it was not possible to furnish the required information under RTI. The said fact was informed to the petitioner as reply to his application dated 29.11.2013. Thus, the question of non-furnishing of information and delay in furnishing the information does not arise and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

Respondent No.2 filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that in spite of best efforts put in by the SPIO, the information sought by the petitioner could not be traced out as service details of the retired incumbent in question could not be ascertained accurately till date. Further, the petitioner has failed to give correct details of the retired person despite direction of the second respondent dated 28.3.2016. It is stated that only after due consideration and minute examination of the case records, the second respondent passed the impugned order and there is no infirmity in the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition, inter alia, challenging the impugned order on the following grounds:

(i) Respondent No.4 did not dispose of the application under RTI of the petitioner either by furnishing the information or rejecting the same within the stipulated time provided under Right to Information Act, 2005.

(ii) Respondent No.5 despite direction given by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to furnish the required information had failed to comply within the stipulated time.

(iii) Respondent Nos. 5 and 4 had rendered to consider the application of the petitioner after lapse of more than 6 months and that too only when the petitioner had filed a writ petition under the compelling circumstances.

(iv) The information furnished by respondent Nos.4 and 5 after the statutory time limit is totally irrelevant and not the information sought by the petitioner.

(v) Respondent No.2 had ignored Section 20 of the Act while disposing of the Complaint Case No.10 of 2016.

(vi) Respondent No.2 had deferred the responsibility of respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 by giving direction to the petitioner to give correct details that too due to the failure of respondent Nos.4 and 5 in furnishing the information.

(vii) Neither respondent Nos. 3 and 4 nor respondent No.5 had complied with the direction of respondent No.2 which is impugned and being challenged in the present writ petition.

Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 submitted that in compliance of the order dated 27.4.2016 impugned in the present writ petition, the Department vide its letter dated 18.8.2016 had furnished the required information to the petitioner and, therefore, the question of non-furnishing of the required information to the petitioner does not arise.

The learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the petitioner has failed to give correct details of the retired person qua whom he is seeking information despite direction of the Commission dated 28.3.2016 and after examination of the records, the Commission had passed the impugned order and, therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned order.

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and also perused the materials available on record.

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the second respondent/State Chief Information Commissioner in disposing of the Complaint Case No.10 of 2016 alleging that without strict adherence to the provisions of the Right to Information Act, it had passed the impugned order and, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.

The petitioner has filed an application dated 29.11.2013 to the State Public Information Officer/Additional Director of Education, Valley Government of Manipur seeking the following information:

(a) Copy of appointment order of Smt. Ningombam Bimola Devi, a retired Headmistress of Kha Imphal Primary School.

(b) Copy of termination/retirement order of Smt. Ningombam Bimola Devi.

(c) Copy of last pay drawn particulars of Smt. Ningombam Bimola Devi.

(d) Copy of service book of Smt. Ningombam Bimola Devi.

(e) How much is the retirement benefit entitled to Smt. Ningombam Bimola Devi.

Upon receipt of the application, the Additional Director of Education, Valley Government of Manipur sent a letter dated 04.12.2013 to respondent No.5 requesting to furnish the required information immediately to the petitioner. Since respondent No.5 had failed to furnish the information, the petitioner filed first appeal before respondent No.3. On 18.01.2014, respondent No.4, once again addressed a letter to respondent No.5 directing to furnish the information in respect of the queries within five days of the receipt of the said letter. Since the respondent authorities had failed to furnish the information, the petitioner constrained to file W.P.(C) No.352 of 2014 before this Court. Pending writ petition, respondent No.4 addressed a letter dated 24.6.2014 enclosing Attendance Register of Kha Imphal Primary School and thereby stating that the required information sought by the petitioner has been provided by respondent No.5.

From the letter dated 24.6.2014, it is seen that respondent No.4 had not given the required information within the stipulated time as provided under Section 6(1) of the Act. While so, by an order dated 01.6.2015, this Court, disposed of W.P.(C) No.352 of 2014 holding as under:

"Heard Mr.Ajoy Pebam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.Vasum, learned GA for the respondents.

It has been submitted that during pendency of the writ petition, the Chief Information Commissioner has been appointed by the State Government and it also been submitted that appropriate remedy is available before the Chief Information Commissioner.

In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with the observation that the petitioner will be at liberty to approach the Chief Information Commissioner or any such authority in accordance with law.

The writ petition stands disposed of."

It is seen that pursuant to the order dated 01.06.2015 passed in W.P.(C) No.352 of 2014, the petitioner has filed Complaint Case No.10 of 2016 before respondent No.2. By the impugned order dated 27.4.2016, Complaint Case No.10 of 2016 has been disposed of by respondent No.2 and the operative portion of the order reads thus:

"The SPIO is represented by Shri L.Ishwarjit Sharma, OSD (RTI). The Complaint is represented by Shri David Boon, Ld. Advocate.

The representative of the SPIO submitted that inspite best efforts, the information sought by the Complainant could not be traced out as service details of the retired incumbent in question could not be ascertained accurately till date and the Ld. Counsel of the Complainant also failed to give correct details of the retired person on whom the Complainant is seeking information inspite direction of this Commission in this regard on 28.3.16.

The Ld. Counsel of the Complainant submitted that the SPIO may be bound to provide information sought in the RTI application.

In view of the submission made by the both parties and perusal of the case records, the Commission directs the SPIO to furnish a reply on the RTI application to the Complainant Indicating availability or otherwise of the Information and details of efforts made by the Public Authority for providing the required information. With the above decision, the Complaint Case is disposed of."

It is admitted that at the time of filing of W.P.(C) No.352 of 2014, the State Chief Information Commissioner/respondent No.2 was not functioning. However, after the commencement of the functioning of the State Information Commission and pursuant to the direction of this Court in the writ petition supra, the petitioner had filed Complaint Case No.10 of 2016 with the fond hope of getting the required information. However, respondent No.2 had disposed of the Complaint Case without adherence to the provisions of Right to Information Act and had merely directed the SPIO to reply to the application of the petitioner.

It is the say of the petitioner that while disposing of the Complaint Case, respondent No.2 did not consider the fact that the petitioner had filed the application way back on 29.11.2013 to respondent No.4 seeking certain information, which was disposed of vide order dated 24.6.2014 after a lapse of more than six months that too enclosing/furnishing irrelevant information as against the information sought for.

On the other hand, it is the say of the respondent authorities that despite best efforts, the information sought by the petitioner could not be traced out as the service details of the incumbent viz., Smt.Ningombam Bimola Devi, could not be ascertained accurately.

As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner the object behind the enactment of the Right to Information Act would become meaningless in the event of non-furnishing of the information sought under Section 6 of the Act within the stipulated period. It is pertinent to point out that the respondent authorities are obliged to furnish the information within the time specified under the Act. However, in the case on hand, the respondent authorities have failed to furnish the required information within the specified period under the Act and the petitioner had been made to suffer without the required information.

The Right to information Act, 2005 has been enacted to "provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for the citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority" and makes it obligatory for every public authority to provide information, unless excepted, within the time specified upon receiving the request. The true and effective operation of Act, which has been enacted with the avowed object of promoting transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities, can never be allowed to be scuttled by public authorities by shunting the applicant from desk to desk or office to office, as attempted in the instant case, without furnishing the relevant information.

Section 20(1) of the Act empowers the Commission to impose penalty of Rs.250/- for each day till application is received or information is furnished subject to a maximum penalty not exceeding Rs.25,000/-. Section 20(2) further empowers the Information Commission to decide that in case an information officer without any reasonable cause refused to receive an application or has not furnished information within the time provided or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given an incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or obstructed in furnishing the information, it can recommend for disciplinary action against such officer under the service rules applicable to him. In the case on hand, nothing has been placed before this Court as to the action taken against the officer concerned for non furnishing the required information. If such violators of statutory provisions are left unpunished, it would give wrong signal to the society.

Though the respondent authorities contended that pursuant to the impugned order, vide communication dated 18.8.2016, the Department had furnished the required information to the petitioner, nothing has been produced to prove the same. In the absence of any proof showing that the required information sought by the petitioner had been furnished to him, it cannot be said that the required information has been furnished to the petitioner by the respondent authorities. That apart, the unexplained towering delay in furnishing the required information despite specific orders passed would warrant imposition of costs inasmuch as the act of the respondent authorities is contrary to the provisions of the Act.

It is to be mentioned that while passing the impugned order, the second respondent has not imposed costs for non-furnishing of the information within the stipulated time by respondent No.4. In such view of the matter, while passing the order impugned directing the State Public Information Officer to furnish reply on the RTI application to the petitioner, the State Public Information Officer ought to have imposed costs of Rs.25,000/- considering the failure of respondent No.4 in furnishing the required information within the stipulated period and making the petitioner run from pillar to post without furnishing the required information.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed with costs of Rs.25,000/- payable by respondent No.4 to the petitioner for non-furnishing of the required information within the stipulated period and the impugned order dated 27.04.2016 passed by the second respondent is set aside. Respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 are directed to furnish the information sought by the petitioner in the application dated 29.11.2013 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.