ASHOK NAIK Vs. CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE , in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is the order dated 9.3.2012 passed by the Commissioner, State Information Commission, in exercise of powers under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

(2.) THE facts of the case are as under:

(3.) MS .Thakore, learned advocate for the petitioner would contend that the order impugned dated 9.3.2012, if perused as a whole, would reveal that the Respondent No.4, knowingly failed to furnish a copy of the affidavitinreply, though available on record and preceding paragraph of the impugned order further makes it clear that the Respondent No.4 had failed to perform his duties and therefore, such failure would bring Respondent No.4 within the meaning of Subsection 1 of Section 7 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Having considered, prima facie, case to proceed against the Respondent No.4 for not furnishing the information, as envisaged, failure to pass an order of punishment under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, by the Commission, amounts exercise of power contrary to the provisions of law, warranting interference by this Court under Section 226 of the Constitution of India. Inter alia, it is stated that the petitioner's right to seek information thus being rendered meaningless by inaction on the part of the Commission and therefore, prayer in para 24A be allowed. Learned advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Prem Lata vs. Central Information Commission in support of her arguments as above.