PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER Vs. ORISSA INFORMATION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 10th of January, 2008 passed by the Orissa Information Commission, Bhubaneswar in Complaint Case No. 138 of 2006. By the said order, the State Information Commission imposed penalty of Rs. 19,250/- on the petitioner as Public Information Officer, who was Senior Assistant in the Office of the Commission of Commercial Tax. Orissa, Cuttack and directed that the amount will be deposited by Treasury challan under appropriate Head of Account of the State Budget within a period of 30 days failing which the amount shall be recovered from her salary in 10 (ten) equal consecutive monthly instalments commencing from the salary of February, 2008 payable in March, 2008 by the Public Authority and in case the Public Authority for adequate reasons is not able to recover the penalty amount from the petitioner, the same can be realized from her as arrears of land revenue.

(2.) The facts of the case are that opposite party No. 2 had filed an application on 5-5-2006 before the Public Information Officer of the office of the Additional Commercial Tax Officer, Assessment Unit, Kesinga for the Oriya version of the rate of VAT on different commodities prevailing in Orissa who forwarded the same on the same day to the office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Cuttack. Section 7 (1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 provides that subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 5 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a request under Section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in Sections 8 and 9. As the information was not furnished within the time stipulated under the Act, opposite party No. 2 made a complaint to the Chief Information Commissioner on 6-7-2006 which was registered as Complaint Case No. 138 of 2006 and notice was issued to petitioner No. 1 on 24-8-2006 to show cause by 4-10-2006. On 7-9-2006, the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Admn.), office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Orissa. Cuttack intimated opposite party No. 2 that since the information regarding the rate of VAT on different commodities in Oriya version was not available in the department, the information could not be supplied being not available. Pursuant to the notice dated 24-8- 2006 issued in Complaint Case No. 138 of 2006, the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Administration) showed cause stating that since the information sought for by opposite party No. 2 was not in existence, there was no occasion to supply the same. He, however, indicated that since information relating to rate of VAT on different commodities in Oriya had not been prepared/available, it was their duty to simply intimate the applicant about the fact of non-availability of the information sought for by him within the stipulated time. On 7-3-2007, the matter was taken up. The complainant did not appear but sent a letter to the State Commission to permit him to withdraw the complaint. Even then, without permitting withdrawal of the complaint, the Commission came to hold that petitioner No. 2 who was the dealing assistant and one Trilochan Pradhan who was the Section Officer were prima facie responsible for the delay. So holding the Commission directed issuance of notice only to petitioner No. 2 to show cause as to why penalty as per provision of Section 29(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 should not be attracted. Pursuant to the notice dated 12-3-2007 issued to petitioner No. 2, she showed cause stating that though the letter was available to her on 22-5-2006 but the single file in which such applications were dealt with was made available to her on 17-7-2006. Hence, there was delay. Penalty has been imposed due to the alleged reason that the petitioner had retained the file from 22-5-2006 to 26-8-2006 and was found responsible for delay of 77 days. The complainant had sought for the Oriya version of the rate of VAT on different commodities prevailing in Orissa and if Oriya version of the VAT rate chart was not in existence with the Public Authority, a simple reply within the time line would have sufficed. But in the instant case, a negative answer was given by the referred PIO after a delay of 77 days which cannot be lost sight of or condoned.

(3.) Here at this stage we are not inclined to see the merits of the case in view of the provisions of the Right to Information Act and the Rules made thereunder, as it is not in dispute that the complainant did not want to proceed with the complaint and had already sought for withdrawal of his complaint. He also did not appear in the case. Even then the Orissa Information Commission kept the complaint pending and decided the same punishing the PIO.