RAJBABLA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 4.1.2007 (P -1), passed by the State Information Commission, Haryana -respondent No. 2, claiming that he has failed to impose penalty as contemplated under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for brevity, 'the Act'), despite the fact that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were deficient in not furnishing the requisite information as per the provisions of the Act. A further prayer has been made for directing respondent No. 4 to pay penalty to the petitioner as per the provisions of the Act.

(2.) DURING the course of hearing of the application by the State Information Commission, information as sought by the petitioner was provided, as is evident from reading of the order. However, the State Information Commission -respondent No. 2 did not impose any penalty contemplated by Section 20 of the Act. The prayer made by the petitioner is that penalty must be imposed once there is delay in supply of information. The operative part of the order reads as under:

(3.) ACCORDINGLY , the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.