The Jharkhand High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad upheld the decision of the State Information Commissioner on the concerned department of the State government wherein fine of INR 60,000 was imposed for not providing the information in time. (The State of Jharkhand & Anr. V. The Information Commissioner & Anr.)
Facts of the case
The instant writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India preferred by the State of Jharkhand, through the Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand assailing the order passed by the State Information Commissioner, Jharkhand in Appeal Case No.620 of 2009 whereby and where under, in exercise of power conferred under Section 19(8) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, a penalty of Rs.60,000/- has been imposed as compensation to be paid in favor of the complainant on the concerned department of the State Government for not providing the information in time.
The ground has been taken that under the provision of Right to Information Act, the order of penalty can only be passed upon the Public Information Officer who can only be treated to be erring official in not supplying the information in view of the request made by the complainant under Section 6 & 7 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Contentions of the parties
Learned counsel for the State Information Commission submitted that there is no error in awarding the penalty upon the concerned department of the State Government in exercise of power conferred under Section 19(8) (b) of the Act, 2005. According to him, the reference of Public Authority has been made under Section 19(8) (b) of the Act, 2005 wherein the compensation is to be imposed upon the Public Authority.
He further argued the “Public Authority” has been defined which means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted by or under the Constitution; by any other law made by Parliament; by any other law made by State Legislature; by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any body owned, controlled or substantially financed, non-Government organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government. It cannot be disputed that the Health Department of the State Government is not a creation by the State of Jharkhand and since the State of Jharkhand is coming under the control of State Government in view of the definition of PublicAuthority, Health Department of the State will be treated to be a Public Authority and hence, the penalty has been imposed.
Courts observation and Judgment
The court in the present case stated, “The provision of Section 20(1) provides that if the Information Commission will come to a conclusion that the information seeker has malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees. Provided that the Public Information Officer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him.”
Further explaining Section 20, the court stated “The provision of penalty under Section 20 has been inserted by way of deterrent provision so that in case of violation of the purpose and object of the Act, the penalty is to be imposed upon the concerned Public Information Officer either of the Central or the State Government, as the case may be, but prior to that an opportunity of hearing is required to be provided.”
The court later added “This Court, on the basis of the aforesaid legal position since has come to a finding that the State Information Commission is having power to pass an order of compensation by resorting to the provision of Section 19(8)(b) of the Act, 2005, therefore, is of the view that the order passed by the State Information Commission directing the concerned department of the State of Jharkhand to compensate the writ petitioner by making payment of Rs.60,000/- in exercise of power conferred under Section 19(8)(b) of the Act, 2005 cannot be held to suffer from any illegality.”
Keeping in mind the above rationale and dismissing the instant case, the court stated “Accordingly, this Court declines to interfere with the order whereby and where under the State Information Commission has directed the concerned department of the State of Jharkhand to compensate the complainant by making payment of Rs.60,000/- in exercise of power conferred under Section 19(8)(b) of the Act, 2005.In the result, the instant writ petition fails and stands dismissed.”
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
