GOKUL PANCHAL Vs. STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER (M.P.)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking direction to the respondent nos.3 and 4 to provide necessary information as demanded by him.

(2.) The petitioner is permanent resident of State of Madhya Pradesh. Respondent No.3 filed a complaint under Section 151 of Electricity Act, 2003 against him alongwith one Subhash S/o Onkar. Respondent No.3 conducted the raid in the premises of the petitioner and found the electricity theft which is punishable under Section 135 and 136 of the Electricity Act. Panchnama No.4044/24 dated 07.07.2011 was prepared and loss of energy was assessed of Rs.18,252/- with compounding fees of Rs.1,000/-. In the complaint case, after receipt of summons, the petitioner appeared and pleaded for compounding and the learned trial Court has closed the complaint by way of compounding.

(3.) After closure of aforesaid case, the petitioner filed an application under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 on 19.01.2017 before Public Information Officer for providing copy of notice by which amount of Rs.18,252/-, compounding fees and its acknowledgment were demanded from him. When the aforesaid information was not provided, he preferred an appeal before the first appellate Authority under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act. When the first appellate Authority has not decided the appeal, he preferred Second Appeal before the State Information Commission. On 25.06.2019, Shri Vinod Tiwari, Assistant Engineer/Public Information Officer appeared and submitted that the information has already been made available before the appellate Court and notice was issued to the petitioner on 25.05.2017 to collect the information. Vide order dated 25.06.2019, the State Commission has disposed of the appeal by directing the Public Information Officer to provide the information to the petitioner within 15 days by post and closed the matter. According to the petitioner, vide letter dated 17.08.2019, the Public Information Officer has provided the wrong information and thereafter, he has again made representation to the State Information Commission demanding compensation of Rs.50,000/- and now, he is before this Court by way of this petition.