RAMESH KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.M. No.6065 of 2018

(2.) Civil Writ Petition No.22950 of 2016

(3.) It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the Central Information Commission dated 16.09.2016 is unsustainable in the light of the fact that the provisions of the 2005 Act have not been rightly appreciated. He contends that the language of Section 20(1) of the 2005 Act deals with the penalties itself, which makes it clear that the Commission, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal, would proceed to impose penalty in case the contingencies/situations, as have been pointed out therein, are found to be existent. He, thus, contends that the composite petition itself is a misnomer as it is the discretion of the Appellate Authority on the basis of evidence and the documents available on record to decide with regard to the penalties. He, therefore, contends that the impugned order deserves to be set-aside and the case remanded back to the Central Information Commission for fresh decision on merits.