G K JAIS Vs. INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CALLING in question tenability of an order dated 9.1.2009 passed by the M.P. State Information Commissioner, imposing penalty of Rs.25,000/ - on the petitioner in accordance to the provisions of Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(2.) PETITIONER is substantively holding the post of Chief Chemist in the M.P. Pollution Control Board, Bhopal and in the year 2006 was made a Public Information Officer of the Board. On 5.9.06, certain informations were sought for by one Shri Ajay Dubey under the provisions of Right to Information Act. The petitioner marked over the information sought for to the Finance Officer for seeking feed -back and information. The information seeker thereafter made various communications and finally some information was given. However, when the matter traveled to the State Commission, the Commission found that the petitioner was not given the information in time and, therefore, imposed penalty of Rs.25,000/ - under Section 20(1) of the Act.

(3.) SHRI R.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate invited my attention to the application filed vide annexure P -1 the information sought for and action taken by the petitioner to say that immediately after the application was filed by the Information Seeker on 5.9.2006 petitioner on 7.9.2006 vide annexure P -2 sought for information from the concerned department. The department informed the petitioner that no such information is available with them. Thereafter the petitioner refers to various correspondence, which shows that petitioner sought for supply of the relevant material. After the necessary information and details were supplied to him by the department concerned, he passed orders on the application of the information seeker. Accordingly, contending that from documents annexure P -2 to P -11 the petitioner has tried to demonstrate as to how delay was occasioned in calling information and by ignoring all these factors and by holding that information was not giving in time, it is stated that petitioner has proceeded with and penal action is taken by imposing maximum penalty.