PONVELRAJ Vs. STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER, CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed to quash the impugned order dtd. 6/8/2014 and the consequential order, dtd. 25/8/2014.

(2.) The petitioner is working as Sanitary Inspector in Kayalpattinam Municipality. The nature of job assigned to the petitioner is to keeping the public health and maintain sanitation in the locality comes under the Municipality. Under the Right to Information Act, 2005, every public authority should designate Public Information Officers within 100 days of the enactment of the Act. Accordingly, the State of Tamil Nadu designated the competent authorities as Public Information Officers. In the Municipal Corporation, the Manager was designated as Public Information Officer and as such they are competent to receive applications and furnish information under the Right to Information Act. In Kayalpattinam Municipality the post of Manager was vacant for a long time and no one was even acting as "In-charge Manager". The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner's post is subordinate to the post of Manager and the petitioner is incompetent to receive applications and provide information under Right to Information Act. As the post was kept vacant for a period from 2010-2013, the other officials who were not designated as Public Information Officers had been advised by their superiors to provide necessary information under the Right to Information Act.

(3.) One P.M.M.Mohideen of Changanacherry of Kerala State had sought information under the Right to Information Act, regarding the property tax. The applications were addressed to the Public Information Officer, Kayalpattinam Municipality as well as the Public Information Officer cum Municipal Commissioner, Kayalpattinam Municipal Corporation. The information sought was furnished by the Municipal Corporation on 15/3/2011. Not satisfied by the information provided by the Municipality, the above said P.M.M.Mohideen, preferred the appeal in Case No.47150 of 2012 before the first respondent. After enquiry, the first respondent directed the Public Information Officer to provide all the documents sought under the application. Accordingly, the copies of the relevant documents were furnished to P.M.M.Mohideen through his brother. Since the documents were not sent to him directly, the first respondent issued show cause notice to the petitioner and the second respondent, directed the petitioner to reply as to why maximum punishment should not be imposed. As per the instructions of the second respondent, the petitioner appeared before the first respondent and made oral submissions regarding the issue raised in the show cause notice on 22/1/2013. But the first respondent vide his order, dtd. 6/8/2014, rejected the petitioner's explanation and imposed the maximum penalty of Rs.25,000.00 and directed the 2nd respondent to recover the same from the petitioner's salary. Pursuant to the order of the first respondent, dtd. 6/8/2014, the second respondent vide proceedings, dtd. 25/8/2014, ordered to recover the penalty amount in five installments.