GAGNISH SINGH KHURANA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in the present Civil Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dtd. 20/7/2021 (Annexure P-6) passed by respondent No.4-Punjab State Information Commission, Chandigarh, vide which the second appeal preferred by the petitioner has been disposed of and closed. Further prayer for quashing the order dtd. 4/10/2021 (Annexure P9) passed by respondent No.4-Punjab State Information Commission, Chandigarh has also been made.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had submitted an application dtd. 11/11/2019 to respondent No.2, seeking the following information:-

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in terms of Sec. 7 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act of 2005'), it was the obligation of the Public Information Officer to have supplied the requisite information within a period of 30 days but however, respondent No.2 did not supply the requisite information to the petitioner for a considerable amount of time which even went beyond 30 days and thus, the petitioner filed first appeal under Sec. 19(1) of the Act of 2005. It is contended that since, even thereafter the requisite information was not supplied, the petitioner, after waiting for a period of 52 days, preferred the second appeal before respondent No.4 under Sec. 19(3) of the Act of 2005 read with Punjab State Right to Information Rules, 2017 and has referred to the copy of the said second appeal which is annexed as Annexure P-3 with the writ petition to highlight the fact that several prayers were made in the said second appeal. It is argued that as per the provisions of Sec. 20 of the Act of 2005, in case, the State Information Commission is of the opinion that at the time of deciding any complaint/appeal, the State Public Information Officer has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished the same within the specified time or malafidely denied the same or had destroyed the information then, the State Information Commission would impose a penalty as stipulated in the said Sec. and also take appropriate action. It is further argued that on 27/5/2021, respondent No.4-Commission took cognizance of an affidavit dtd. 26/5/2021 filed by respondent No.2 which stated that the record demanded by the petitioner from the Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation (PSIEC) was not traceable/available in the office record and thereafter, vide the impugned order dtd. 20/7/2021, the State Information Commission, by passing a cryptic and non-speaking order, merely on the basis of the said affidavit, disposed of and closed the statutory appeal of the petitioner. The same was done in spite of the fact that it was specifically recorded that the petitioner was not satisfied with the information provided and without dealing with the submissions of the petitioner. It is argued that respondent No.4 had, believed the contents of the affidavit on face value without considering the circumstances on account of which it was stated that the record was not traceable/available. It is contended that the information sought more so, under points No.1, 2 and 3 of the application could not be stated to have been not available and at any rate, the said information could not have been destroyed without following the proper procedure and without entering the factum of destruction of such information in the relevant register. It is argued that no such query was put by respondent No.4 to the concerned officer who had signed the affidavit nor any effort was made to enquire as to on what basis the officer had given the affidavit that the information was not traceable/available and as to whether the said information had been lost or destroyed or was never available in the office and in case, the same had been lost or destroyed then whether any DDR was got recorded regarding the same or if the procedure for destruction of record was followed or not. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment dtd. 13/9/2013 passed by the Delhi High Court in WP(C) No.3660 of 2012 titled as 'Union of India Vs. Vishwas Bhamburkar' (Annexure P-8), and has highlighted paras 7 and 8 of the said judgment which are reproduced herein below:-