RAJESH KUMAR PATEL Vs. CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) The present petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner sought an information on 28.03.2009 vide Annexure P-1, wherein the information was sought for that in the primary health centre Banji, Khogapani, Behrasi, Banjaridad, Bhaiswar and other primary health centers different amount were received by the Chief Medical & Health Officer, District Korea, the particulars of the amount so received and the date thereof was sought for. The second information was sought for in the primary health center as to what equipments were purchased for how many amount? The third information was with respect to the copy of the cash-book from November, 2008 till 28.03.2009 i.e. the date of application. It is stated that thereafter no information was provided to the petitioner within a period of 30 days from such request. It is further stated that thereafter the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 19 (1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act, 2005') vide Annexure P-2 on 29.04.2009. The said appeal also remained unanswered or undecided for a period of 45 days and lastly the second appeal was filed before the Commission under Section 19 (3) of the Act, 2005 on 28.05.2009. It is further contended that thereafter the Commission directed the respondent No.3 to provide certified copy of the required documents. Pursuant to which, though the copy was provided but they were not certified. Therefore, the letter was addressed by the petitioner to the Commission on 15.11.2009. The Commission thereafter finally on 24.02.2010 during the hearing observed that the certified copy should be supplied to the petitioner. It is stated that finally all the documents were provided on 03.02.2011. It is further stated that from the date of initial application on 28.03.2009 till the final documents/information was supplied it was on 03.02.2011, therefore, approximately it caused 23 months delay. Therefore, the penalty as required under sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Act, 2005 should be imposed on the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even copy of the cash-book which were given, their serial numbers were disturbed. As such, the petitioner could not trace the origin of it. So appropriate orders as per prayer made be passed.