RAMESH SHARMA Vs. STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question raised in the instant petition is whether a state Information Commission could impose penalty under Section 20 (1) of the Right to information Act, 2005 (for brevity, 'the Act' ). The instant petition is directed against order dated 16-10-2007 (P-1) passed by the state Information Commission, Haryana (for brevity, 'the Commission', imposing a penalty of Rs. 19,250/- by invoking the provisions of Section 20 (1) of the Act for 77 delay in furnishing the information in accordance with mandatory provisions of sub-section (1)of Section 7 of the Act.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that applicant respondent No. 3 made an application dated 16-10-2006 for seeking specified information from the petitioner. However, information was not furnished to the respondent No. 3. On 1-2-2007 only a part of information was given and the supplementary information was made available to him on 14-2-2007. After waiting for some time, applicant respondent No. 3 had filed an appeal before the Commission on 1-12-2006, who relegated him to file an appeal before the first Appellate Authority prior to approaching the Commission. Accordingly, he filed the first appeal on 2-1-2007 before the Vice-Chancellor of the University with the grievance that he was not supplied the required information. The University had constituted the First Appellate Authority on 2-3-2007 under the Act. Consequently, the applicant-respondent No. 3 approached the Second appellate Authority again on 20-2-2007. The. petitioner filed the reply before the Second appellate Authority on 23-7-2007 (P-2)raising preliminary objection that applicant-respondent No. 3 should have approached the first Appellate Authority in the first instance, eventually the Commission allowed the appeal filed by applicant-respondent no. 3 vide order dated 1-8-2007 and issued direction to the petitioners to allow appli-cant respondent No. 3 to inspect the record. The needful was done by the petitioners as per the direction issued. It was thereafter the Commission issued a show-cause notice (P-3) to the petitioner, asking the petitioner as to why a penalty @ Rs. 250/- for each day of delay subject to maximum of rs. 25,000/- in supplying the information be not imposed. The Commission initiated proceedings under Section 20 (1) of the Act. The petitioner filed his reply dated 1-10-2007 (P-4) to the show cause notice. The commission after detailed examination recorded the finding imposing penalty on the petitioner, the operative part of the order dated 16-10-2007 reads thus :-

(3.) DR. Balram Gupta, learned Senior advocate has made three submissions before us. Firstly, he has submitted that subsection (2) of Section 20 of the Act would not apply unless findings are recorded that the petitioner has been persistently delaying the supply of information and that too without any reasonable cause. According to learned counsel, it is not that in every case of delay, penalty could be imposed by placing reliance on sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act. Secondly, he has submitted that the Commission could not have proceeded against the petitioners without firstly training the public authority like the petitioners as envisaged by Section 26 of the Act. According to learned counsel it was incumbent upon the State Government to train the petitioner by encouraging their participation in the development and organisation of programmes as envisaged by Sec. 26 (1) (a)of the Act. Learned counsel has insisted that in the absence of any such programmes, having been organised to train the Public information Officer like the petitioner, the commission should have taken a lenient view by sparing the petitioner from imposition of such a penalty. Learned counsel has lastly submitted that no second appeal was maintainable without first filing. The first appeal before the authority constituted by the Kurukshetra University.