N. MANJU SHREE Vs. COMMISSIONER, STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner being a Public Information Officer is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the order dtd. 6/3/2015, passed by the 1st respondent-Commissioner for State Information, whereby, a fine of Rs.10,000.00 has been levied for the delay crept in furnishing the subject information.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that Sec. 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, prescribes Rs.25,000.00 as the maximum penalty and that cogent reasons have to be given for awarding such a high amount by way of penalty, in respect of maiden lapses.

(3.) After service of notice, the 1st respondent-Commissioner is represented by its Panel Advocate and the 3rd respondent has remained unrepresented. Learned counsel for 1st respondent makes submission in justification of the impugned order contending that the merits of the order cannot be rovingly examined by the Writ Court exercising a limited supervisory jurisdiction constitutionally vested under Article 227 vide SADHANA LODH Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., (2003) 3 SCC 524.