U.K. Joshi vs Chief Information Commissioner and Another

Alok Singh, J.—Undisputedly, applications were moved by respondent No. 2, herein, before the District Magistrate/Collector, Udham Singh Nagar on 18.12.2007 seeking two informations. Since, information sought were pertaining to the office of District Industries Centre, Rudrapur, therefore, applications were forwarded by the District Magistrate/Collector to the petitioner u/s 6(3) of the Act; Having received the applications from the office of the District Magistrate, petitioner issued one letter to respondent No. 2 on 24.12.2007 requesting respondent No. 2 to come to the office of the petitioner to collect the information sought; However, admittedly, informations sought were supplied to respondent No. 2 on 28.01.2008; learned Chief Information Commissioner, in the impugned order dated 6.8.2008, has held that informations ought to have been supplied prior to 22.1.2008, however, were supplied on 28.01.2008 with the delay of six days, therefore, fine of Rs. 5,000/- should be imposed against the petitioner, and imposed the fine of Rs. 5000/- and recommended for disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

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

Penalties-(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.

Having perused Section 20 of the Act, I have absolutely no hesitation to hold that if the Public Information Officer, 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, then, penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees for each day may be imposed against the petitioner.

In Section 20, the words used are-"without any reasonable cause". It demonstrates that if for reasonable cause information could not be furnished within thirty days, then, there is no question of imposition of any fine.

It is stated by the petitioner, which has not been denied, that the petitioner remained on leave from 12.1.2008 to 27.1.2008 and immediately after coming from the leave on 28.1.2008, information sought were supplied to respondent No. 2. Therefore, there was reasonable cause for the petitioner for not supplying the information within time, which ought to have been accepted by the Chief Information Commissioner but it was not accepted without any sufficient reason.

Consequently, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order is hereby quashed.