VIMAL KUMAR SETIA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in the present writ petition is to the show cause notice dated 24.07.2008 (Annexure P5) and the order dated 26.09.2008 (Annexure P8), passed by the State Information Commissioner, Punjab, whereby it had directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 25,000/ -, as penalty, under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, the 'Act'), on account of delay in supplying the information.

(2.) A perusal of the paperbook would go on to show that respondent No. 3 had filed an application for supply of information. The petitioner had been directed to appear personally on 25.07.2008 to explain as to why action should not be taken against the Principal Information Officer under Section 20 of the Act. Thereafter also, an adjournment had been granted but the petitioner had not supplied the necessary information. Accordingly, show cause notice was issued on 01.08.2008 to the petitioner, who was serving as District Transport Officer, to appear before the Commission. The petitioner's defence was that the complainant -respondent No. 3 was not appearing and the complaint may be filed because of the said factor. Plea was also taken that no such information was sought for. On 24.07.2008, the office of the District Transport Officer, Amritsar communicated to the said Information Commission that information had been submitted and reply had been sent on 08.05.2008 and 15.05.2008 and the complaint may be filed. The Commission, on 01.08.2008, noticed that the petitioner was the Public Information Officer and therefore, initiated proceedings under Section 20 of the Act against him. The petitioner filed his reply that the complainant had not been appearing and his office had been representing the matter and Government officials had been harassed and made a request for dismissing the complaint in default. Accordingly, the State Information Commission passed the impugned order by holding that the attitude of the petitioner cannot be deprecated as the information was supplied after a period of one year and the maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000/ - was, accordingly, imposed, which was to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner. Resultantly, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) THE above facts would, thus, go on to show that the petitioner has been guilty of the lapse as the information was supplied after a period of one year and a factual finding was recorded.