PRAHLADBHAI PATEL Vs. GUJARAT STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Mr.Anjaria, learned Counsel waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No.1, Mr.Poojari, learned AGP appears for respondent No.2 and waives service of notice of Rule, and Mr.V.K.Shah for Mr.Tushar Mehta, learned Counsel waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No.3. With the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides, the matter is finally heard today.

(2.) THE short facts of the case appear to be that respondent No.3 applied for certain information, which as per respondent No.3, was not supplied and, therefore, the complaint was made to the Commission for non -compliance of the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In response to the said complaint, as per the respondent No.1 Commission, notice was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner did appear. It is the contention of respondent No.1 that the opportunity was given, the written reply was considered, however, the opportunity of oral submissions by way of furtherance to the written submission was not availed of by the petitioner and as, on merits, the informations were not supplied and consequence of penalty has been provided under the Act and, therefore, the impugned order has been passed.

(3.) WHEREAS it is the contention of the petitioner that after the submission of written reply, in furtherance thereto, second reply/submission was also to be submitted, but when it was tendered to the Clerk/Public Sherestedar, the same was not accepted and the petitioner was asked to approach before the Commission and as the Commission was not available, the same could not be submitted and thereafter the petitioner received the impugned order of imposition of the punishment. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.