T.K.ANILKUMAR Vs. STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P16 order passed by the State Information Commission (for short 'Commission'), the 1st respondent, under Sec. 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, the 'RTI Act, 2005').

(2.) The petitioner, while working a Commercial Tax Officer, 2nd circle, Kottayam, was designated as Public Information Officer under the RTI Act, 2005. While so, the 2nd respondent sought certain information regarding M/s Indiana Panels, Kottayam under the RTI Act, 2005. The information sought in the respective applications was provided by the petitioner. By Ext.P9 application, the 2nd respondent sought for copies of documents related to revenue recovery proceedings issued to District Collector, Kottayam by the office of the Commercial Tax Officer in respect of arrears of M/s Indiana Panels, Kottayam. To Ext.P9, the petitioner submitted Ext.P10 reply, stating that the documents sought cannot be provided under Sec. 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 and Sec. 85 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short, 'KVAT Act'). Against Ext.P10, the 2nd respondent filed an appeal under the RTI Act, 2005 before the First Appellate Authority, the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Kottayam. The petitioner submitted reply stating that as per Sec. 85(1) of the KVAT Act, the disclosure of the details requested in Ext.P9 are prohibited. However, the Appellate Authority, by Ext.P13 order, directed the petitioner to furnish all information required by the 2nd respondent in Ext.P9 application.

(3.) Against Ext.P13, the petitioner, by Ext.P14 letter, sought clarification from the 1st respondent Commission, pointing out that Sec. 85 of the KVAT Act prohibits the disclosure of the details sought in Ext.P9 and, how the documents as requested can be provided to the applicant under the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission, by Ext.P15 letter, informed the petitioner that the Commission has no advisory jurisdiction and the applications under the RTI Act, 2005 have to be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. The petitioner was thereafter transferred from the post of Commercial Tax Officer, 2nd circle, Kottayam and he vacated the charge of Public Information Officer. In the meantime, the 2nd respondent filed second appeal before the 1st respondent Commission and the 1st respondent directed the Public Information Officer to provide the required information. Having formed the opinion that the petitioner, without reasonable cause, failed to furnish the information required by the 2nd respondent, the Commission issued a show cause notice to the petitioner, seeking explanation as to why penalty should not be imposed on him. The petitioner submitted his explanation, and the Commission, after hearing him, passed Ext.P16 order, finding that the petitioner did not provide the information to the 2nd respondent within 30 days as required under Sec. 7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, and is liable for penalty under Sec. 20 of the Act. However, taking a lenient view, a penalty of Rs.2,500.00alone was imposed on the petitioner. Ext.P16 order is challenged in this writ petition.