Suman Agarwal vs State Information Commissioner, Uttarakhand, Dehradun And Another

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

Petitioner is challenging the order dated 05.01.2017 passed by State Information Commissioner, Uttarakhand in Appeal No. 21832 of 2016. By the

said order, penalty of Rs. 25,000/- has been imposed upon the petitioner for not providing timely information to respondent no. 2.

The said penalty has been imposed on the ground that some delay was caused in supplying the desired information to respondent no. 2. The

information, which was sought by respondent no. 2, was in respect of Delhi Public School, which is not a Public Authority, as defined under Section 2

(h) of Right to Information Act. However, the fact of the matter is that the information was supplied to respondent no. 2. Whatever delay was caused

in supplying the information, was beyond the control of the petitioner, who was posted as Deputy Education Officer, Bahadrabad, at the relevant point

of time.

The application, under Section 6 (1) of Right to Information Act, was made by respondent no. 2 to District Education Officer, who had referred the

application to the petitioner for doing the needful. Petitioner had asked the Principal, Delhi Public School, Ranipur, Haridwar to supply information; but,

Principal, Delhi Public School had initially refused to supply the information on the ground that it is not bound to supply such information, however,

subsequently, on petitioner’s persuasion, the desired information was supplied by the Principal, Delhi Public School to the petitioner which, in turn,

was furnished to respondent no. 2. Although, some delay was caused in supplying the information, however, such delay was beyond the control of the

petitioner. Petitioner did her best to get the information and the information was also furnished to respondent no. 2 as soon as the same was received

from the concerned school.

A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Public Prescribed Authority & others Vs. Uttarakhand State Information Commissioner & others,

reported in 2015 (1) U.D., 323, has held as under:

“A plain reading of Sub-Section 1 of Section 20 of the Act would reveal that penalty can be imposed for delayed information if delay was caused

without any valid reason.

In the present case, explanation furnished by the petitioner before the Chief Information Commissioner was that concern file was not traceable in the

department and same was got reconstructed later on and thereafter information was supplied to the applicant. Chief Information Commissioner has

nowhere observed that explanation furnished by the petitioner is a mere eye-wash and is not reasonable.

In my considered opinion, if explanation for delayed information is reasonable and delay was caused due to valid reasons then penalty should not be

imposed by invoking of Sub-Section 1 of Section 20. Therefore, impugned judgment does not sustain in the eyes of law. Consequently, writ petition is

allowed. Impugned judgment dated 13.12.2011 is hereby quashed.â€​

Thus, the penalty imposed upon the petitioner appears to be unjust and uncalled for.

In such view of the matter, the impugned order dated 05.01.2017 passed by State Information Commissioner is set aside to the extent it relates to

imposing of penalty of Rs. 25,000/- upon the petitioner for supplying delayed information to respondent no.2

Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above.