Ravikant Dhaaniya vs State Information Commission & others

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.

Petitioner before this Court is a government officer who is presently working as Lekhpal. At the relevant time, he was working as In-charge Registrar

Kanoogo, Vikas Nagar, Dehradun. An information was sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005 by the private respondent no. 2 from the

Tehsildar, Vikas Nagar, Dehradun. Not satisfied with the information, an appeal was preferred and subsequently, the matter went to the State

Information Commission in second appeal.

In the second appeal, the State Information Commissioner has held that since an explanation was sought from the petitioner through the Tehsildar, and

the petitioner failed to furnish the information and therefore the petitioner will be deemed to be the Public Information Officer who has not cooperated

in furnishing the information, and it will be deemed that he has caused hindrance in furnishing the information under the Right to Information Act, 2005

and thereafter the State Information Commissioner has imposed penalty of rupees twenty five thousand on the petitioner vide order dated 18.5.2017

which is under challenge in the present writ petition.

Notices were sent to the State Information Commission (respondent no.1) and the private respondent no. 2 through Registered Post Acknowledgment

Due but neither the acknowledgment nor the undelivered envelopes of notices have received back in the Registry and hence the service on them is

deemed sufficient.

Contention of the petitioner before this Court is that the order dated 18.5.2017 passed by the State Information Commissioner is totally without

jurisdiction inasmuch as the penalties under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 can only be imposed against the Public Information

Officer or the Appellate Authority. Petitioner is neither a Public Information Officer nor an Appellate Authority under the Right to Information Act,

2005. Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 reads as under:

“20. Penalties.â€"(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding

any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has,

without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-

section (1) of section 7 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, it shall impose a penalty of two

hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed

twenty-five thousand rupees:

Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable

opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him:

Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State

Public Information Officer, as the case may be.

(2) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or

appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any

reasonable cause and persistently, failed to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-

section (1) of section 7 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, it shall recommend for

disciplinary action against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under the service rules

applicable to him.â€​

Contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner on the above aspect is correct. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated

18.5.2017 is hereby set aside.