VED PRAKASH Vs. STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 'Key facts' necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner has submitted an application for supply of documents under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the sake of convenience) before the District Panchayat Officer-Cum-Public Information Officer, Dharamshala vide Annexure P/1. The District Panchayat Officer-Cum-Public Information Officer, Dharamshala forwarded the application to the Block Development Officer, Dharamshala, Tehsil and District Kangra on 30th March, 2010. The Panchayat Shayak, Gram Panchayat Khanyara informed the Block Development Officer, Dharamshala that the photo copies of the documents were being supplied to the petitioner. Photo copies of the documents were also annexed with letter, dated 23.04.2010. Since the documents sought for by the petitioner, i.e., copies of applications, dated 19.05.2006, 20.05.2006 and 16/17.05.2006 were not supplied to the petitioner, he submitted an application to the Block Development Officer, Dharamshala on 29.04.2010 stating therein that the information supplied to him was not acceptable to him and he has also sought the address of the next appellate authority. Thereafter, the petitioner was informed vide letter, dated 01.05.2010 that the information sought for by him was also being supplied by annexing letter, dated 30.04.2010. The Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Khanyara has informed the Block Development Officer vide letter, dated 30.04.2010 that the record of the Panchayat was verified, but the letters, dated 19.05.2006, 20.05.2006 and 16/17.05.2006, were not found in the record. Being aggrieved by the incorrect and misleading information supplied to him, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the A.D.C.-Cum-Appellate Authority vide Annexure P-6 on 31.05.2006. Petitioner has specifically stated therein that the information supplied by the Block Development Officer, Dharamshala to him was not correct. The matter was heard on 17.06.2010 and the Block Development Officer, Dharamshala was directed to examine the receipts of applications and action taken thereon and submit his report within two weeks. The matter was examined by the SEBPO, Dharamshala and he submitted a copy of the reply of Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Khanyara, a copy whereof was also supplied to the petitioner on 17.07.2007. The case was closed on 17.07.2007. The copy of letter, dated 13.07.2010, supplied to the petitioner at the time of hearing, has been placed on record vide Annexure P-8. Surprisingly, what has been stated by the Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Khanyara in letter, dated 13.07.2010 (Annexure P-8), is that though he has received the letters, dated 19.05.2006, 20.05.2006 and 17.05.2006 which were sent by the petitioner through registered post, but he could not place the same in the records of the Gram Panchayat and has misplaced the same. Feeling aggrieved by the order, dated 17.07.2010, passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Chief Information Commissioner, State Information Commission, Himachal Pradesh on 18.09.2010. Petitioner has specifically mentioned in the grounds of appeal that incorrect information has been supplied to him by the Block Development Officer and the Pradhan, Gram Panchayat. The appeal was decided by the State Information Commission, Himachal Pradesh on 10.12.2010. The State Information Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh instead of taking action against respondents No. 3 and 4, has disposed of the appeal by observing that since the letters were never entered in the records of the office and were reported to have been misplaced by the Pradhan at that time, its supply at that time was not possible. It was also observed that on the same ground the appeal has been rejected by the appellate authority. The order, dated 17.07.2010, was up-held by the appellate authority. It is in these circumstances, the present petition has been filed.

(2.) MR . Ajay Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the respondents No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 have failed to discharge their statutory duties enshrined under the Right to Information Act, 2005. He then contended that since respondents No. 3 and 4 have supplied incorrect information, penalty was required to be imposed upon them by the respondent No. 1. He also argued that respondent No. 4 besides supplying the incorrect information to the petitioner, has supplied misleading information, destroyed the information and has also obstructed furnishing information to his client and for doing this, he ought to have been penalized by respondent No. 1. He lastly contended that the petitioner is entitled to compensation as per Section 19 (8)(b) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully.