SANTANA NAZARETH Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, invoking the mechanism under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereafter the Act for short), presented an application seeking information before the Public Information Officer, respondent no.2, on 29/8/2018. The respondent no.2 did not furnish information within the time stipulated by the Act resulting in institution of a first appeal under sec. 19(1) of the Act by the petitioner before the first appellate authority, respondent no.3. Despite an order passed by the respondent no.3, the respondent no.2 caused unnecessary delay in furnishing information to the petitioner. On 9/11/2018, the petitioner approached the Goa State Information Commission with an appeal/a complaint against the respondent no.2, inter alia, seeking an order that penalty be imposed on the respondent no.2 for breaching the provisions of the Act as also for causing hardship to the petitioner. The appeal/complaint of the petitioner was disposed of by the Information Commissioner (hereafter the Commissioner for short) by an order dtd. 6/2/2019. The claim of the petitioner that there was delay in furnishing information by the respondent no.2 was accepted. The Commissioner also found that the petitioner had been made to run from pillar to post whilst pursuing her application for information and if correct and timely information were provided to her, it would have saved valuable time and hardship that she faced. Considering these aspects, the Commissioner imposed penalty of 2000/- upon the respondent no.2 for contravention Rs. of the provisions of sec. 7(1) of the Act as well as for not complying with the order of the first appellate authority resulting in delay in furnishing of information to the petitioner. The sum of 2000/- was directed to be credited to the Government Rs. Treasury at North Goa. It is not in dispute that the respondent no.2 has since complied with such direction of the Commissioner.

(2.) Aggrieved by the direction of the Commissioner requiring the respondent no.2 to deposit the penalty of 2000/- Rs. with the Government Treasury, the writ jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by the petitioner claiming that the aforesaid direction contained in the order dtd. 6/2/2019 be suitably altered by directing the Commissioner to make an order requiring the respondent no.2 to pay the sum of 2000/- to the petitioner. Rs.

(3.) Mr. S. Keny, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the Commissioner having recorded a specific finding that hardship was caused to the petitioner, he failed to exercise jurisdiction in not directing payment of the sum of 2000/- to the petitioner and misdirected himself in directing Rs. the said sum to be credited to the Government Treasury. He has, accordingly, prayed for an order as claimed vide prayer clause (a) of the writ petition.