RAJKUMAR MISHRA Vs. CHHATTISGARH STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner made an application on 29.8.2011 under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter called as "the Act of 2005") for supply of information to the Public Information Officer/District Education Officer, Baikunthpur. The said information was not supplied to the petitioner within a period of one month as prescribed leading to filing of first appeal in which he remained unsuccessful. In second appeal filed by the petitioner before the State Information Commission, the information was supplied to the petitioner on 5.12.2012. Learned Commission noted the fact of supply of information and held that there was delay of 15 months in supplying the information and in exercise of power conferred under Section 20 (1) of the Act of 2005 imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- to respondent No.2 and also awarded damages of Rs. 500/- to the petitioner under Section 19(8) of the Act of 2005.

(2.) The petitioner herein calls in question order dated 19.6.2013 passed by learned Commission imposing a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 21 (1) of the Act of 2005 stating inter-alia that maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000/- ought to have been imposed by the petitioner against respondent No.2 as there was delay of 15 months in supplying the information. He relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the matter of Sanjay Hindwan v. State Information Commission and others, 2013 AIR(HP) 30, which has been followed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Sham Lal Singla v. State of Punjab & others, CWP No.6419 of 2013(O&M), decided on 18.11.2016.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 would submit that power conferred under Section 20(1) of the Act of 2005 is discretionary in nature, which cannot be interfered with in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as such, the impugned order is strictly in accordance with law.