Allahabad High Court
Ved Prakash Aggarwal vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 1 August, 2019
Bench: Shashi Kant Gupta, Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 32
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24639 of 2019
Petitioner :- Ved Prakash Aggarwal
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pranjal Mehrotra
Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is permitted to implead State Information Commission, Lucknow and Registrar, Information Commission, Lucknow as Respondents No. 4 and 5 respectively during the course of the day.
A copy of the notice has been served today upon Mr. Rahul Jain, Advocate holding brief of Sri Kunal Ravi Singh, learned counsel for the Respondents No. 4 & 5.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the Nagar Nigam, Sri Mr. Rahul Jain, Advocate holding brief of Sri Kunal Ravi Singh, learned counsel for the Respondents No. 4 & 5 and perused the record.
This writ petition has been filed, inter alia, for the following relief;
"(i) To call for the records and to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 2 to recover the amount of penalty imposed by the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission, Lucknow in different cases on different dates upon the Public Information Officer, Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad in accordance with law.
(ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the grievance of the petitioner regarding required information from the respondent No. 3 and further regarding recovery of penalty from the respondent No. 3 in accordance with law."
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that despite the specific order passed by the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (in short "Information Commission") to realize the penalty from the officers of the Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad for not supplying the information, no recovery has yet been made in utter violation of the orders passed by the Information Commission. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner further referred to Rule 15 of the Uttar Pradesh Right to Information Rules, 2015 (in short "the Rules") which is quoted hereinbelow as follows:
"15. (1) The Commission may, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal, impose penalty on a State Public Information Officer in accordance with the provisions of section 20 of the Act.
(2) A copy of the order of the Commission imposing penalty on a State Public Information Officer shall be forwarded to the Registrar. After receipt of such order, the Registrar shall enter the details thereof in a register maintained for the purpose in Form-17.
(3) The penalty order shall be conveyed by the Registrar vide a letter in Form-18, to the controlling authority concerned for recovery of the penalty amount from the salary of the State Public Information Officer and for the deposit of this amount in the following head of account, by the date fixed:
"0070-Other Administrative Services- 60-Other Services- 800- Other receipts- 15-Penalties imposed under Right to Information Act, 2005."
(4) The Government shall make necessary arrangements to ensure recovery of the penalty amount from the State Public Information Officer concerned in compliance of the order of the Commission.
(5) The Registrar shall be responsible for following up each such matter in which the Commission has imposed penalty on any State Public Information Officer, till compliance report is received."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that clauses (4) & (5) of the Rule 15 clearly stipulates that the government shall make necessary arrangements to ensure recovery of penalty amount from the State Public Information Officer in compliance of the order of the Commission and the Registrar shall be responsible for following up each matter in which the Information Commission has implosed penalty on any State Public Information Officer till compliance report is received. He further submitted that the in case penalty so imposed by the Information Commission is not being realized from the erring officers, the order passed by the Information Commission shall become a mere formality and will not have any deterring effect on the officers concerned. The Registrar cannot remain a silent spectator and has to take steps to recover the amount.
We find substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Rahul Jain, Advocate holding brief of Sri Kunal Ravi Singh, learned counsel for the Respondents No. 4 & 5 is directed to seek instructions in the matter and also show cause as to why the order passed by the Information Commission is not being complied with by recovering the penalty especially when the order of penalty was passed way back in the year 2017.
Put up as fresh on 26.8.2019.
Order Date :- 1.8.2019/vinay
