S.P. GAUTAM Vs. INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) None appears for the respondent, even though notice issued and served.

(2.) The petitioner at the relevant time, when the cause of action for filing this writ petition arose was Chairman of M.P. Pollution Control Board, Bhopal and has filed this writ petition being aggrieved by the order dated 09 -01 -2009, passed by the State Information Commissioner imposing penalty of Rs.1500/ - on the petitioner under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act. It seems that one Ajay Shankar Dubey filed an application before the Public Information Officer of the M.P. Pollution Control Board seeking certain information. The Public Information Officer proceeded in the matter and it seems that there was some delay in furnishing of the information by the Public Information Officer.. Finally the matter travelled to the M.P. State Information Commission and by holding that the petitioner being head of the department is also responsible for the delay in furnishing of the information, jurisdiction under section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 has been exercised and penalty of Rs.1500/ - has been imposed upon the petitioner.

(3.) Shri R.N.Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner took me through the provisions of sub sections 1 and 2 of section 20 and argued that under what circumstances penalty can be imposed that also only against State Public Information Officer or the Central Central Public Information Officer. It is indicated by him that under sub sections 1 and 2 of section 20, there is no stipulation for any penalty to be imposed against the head of the department or the appellate authority. It is submitted by him that statutory provisions specifically provides for imposition of penalty on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer and in the absence of any other officer being held liable, it is said that act of imposting penalty on the petitioner who was only head of the department is unsustainable. In support of his contention, he invites attention to this court to the judgment passed in the case of Lajjaram Pandey Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Information Commission and others, 2010 4 MPHT 450 to say that imposition of penalty against the present petitioner is not permissible.