STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition challenges the order imposing penalty under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act for an information which had not furnished by the Public Information Officer. The information that had been sought and which had not been given at the time when the impugned order was passed, was the names of doctors, who had obtained the higher scales of pay, the respective dates of appointment and the dates when the order had been passed affording to the respective doctors the increases in scales of pay. It is not now in dispute that after the order was passed, the entire information had been furnished to the petitioners. The cause for the delay, according to the petitioners, was that there are 2,500 doctors whose service records had to be seen and the entire data had to be collected before giving the information to the petitioners. The delay was not inordinate and there was no contumacious misconduct on the part of the Officer to supply to the petitioner the information.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent would state that there had been even a letter of communication from the Superintendent to the Public Information Officer complaining that there had been needless delay and that all the information sought for should be granted without any further delay. This communication, according to the 2nd respondent, would show that there had been a delay.

(3.) The penalty provisions under Section 20 is only to sensitize the public authorities that they should act with all due alacrity and not hold up information which a person seeks to obtain. It is not every delay that should be visited with penalty. If there is a delay and it is explained, the question will only revolve on whether the explanation is acceptable or not. If there had been a delay of a year and if there was a Superintendent, who was prodding the Public Information Officer to act, that itself should be seen a circumstance where the government authorities seemed reasonably aware of the compulsions of time and the imperatives of providing information without any delay. The 2nd respondent has got what he has wanted and if there was a delay, the delay was for reasons explained above which I accept as justified.