Delhi High Court
Vivek Mittal vs B.P.Srivastava & Others on 24 August, 2009
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
19
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 19122/2006
VIVEK MITTAL ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Manoj Aggarwal, Adv.
versus
B.P.SRIVASTAVA & ORS ... Respondent
Through Mr. Gaurang Kanth, Adv. for MCD.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ?
ORDER
% 24.08.2009
1. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent No.1, who had filed an
application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (Act for short), in spite of
service. The writ petition is accordingly taken up for hearing and final disposal.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by Mr. Vivek Mittal for setting aside
order dated 28th November, 2006 passed by the Chief Information Commissioner
imposing penalty of Rs.5,250/- for delay in supplying information to respondent
No.1.
3. The impugned order reveals that the learned Chief Information
W.P.(C)19122/2006 Page 1
Commissioner had rightly expressed displeasure at the note dated 13th January,
2006 of Deputy Commissioner, Central Zone appointing two class-IV officials as
CPIO under Section 5(5) of the Act. The learned Chief Information Commissioner
was justified in observing a peon and a chowkidar, who were at best messengers,
cannot be appointed as CPIOs.
4. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 in their counter affidavit have submitted that
the Administrative Officer (Central Zone) was the Nodal Officer at the project
building, Lajpat Nagar and the CPIO. The two class IV employees mentioned in the
order passed by the Chief Information Commissioner were entrusted with the
work to collect documents from the concerned officers and handover the same to
the CPIO/Administrative Officer (Central Zone). Thus, the two class-IV officials
were working under and assisting the CPIO i.e. the Administrative Officer (Central
Zone).
5. There is merit in the finding of learned Chief Information Commissioner
that a CPIO cannot escape his obligations and duties by stating that persons
appointed under him had failed to collect documents and information. The Act as
framed, castes obligation upon the CPIOs and fixes responsibility in case there is
failure or delay in supply of information. It is the duty of the CPIOs to ensure that
the provisions of the Act are fully complied with and in case of default, necessary
W.P.(C)19122/2006 Page 2
consequences follow.
6. The Chief Information Commissioner could have proceeded and examined
whether penalty should be imposed on the CPIO i.e. the Administrative Officer
(Central Zone). However, by the impugned order, penalty has been imposed on
the petitioner, who was working as an Administrative Officer (IT). The impugned
order imposing penalty on the petitioner, who was never designated, appointed
or worked as a CPIO, cannot be sustained. The petitioner had conducted an
inquiry as per the directions of the Deputy Commissioner (Central Zone). He was
not responsible for the delay in furnishing the information sought by the
respondent No.1. The impugned order, therefore, is based upon a wrong
assumption that the petitioner was the CPIO, who was responsible for the delay in
furnishing the information. It may also be noted that no opportunity or notice was
issued to the petitioner before penalty was imposed. Accordingly, the impugned
order dated 26th November, 2006 imposing penalty of Rs. 5,250/- on the
petitioner on the ground that he was the CPIO, who had committed the fault, is
set aside.
7. The matter is remanded back to the Central Information Commission for re-
examination. Central Information Commissioner will issue notice to the
concerned CPIO and if required, impose penalty in accordance with law.
W.P.(C)19122/2006 Page 3
8. The respondent MCD will appear before the Central Information
Commission on 23rd September, 2009, when further date will be fixed. It is
clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion whether or not penalty
should be imposed. It is also clarified that in case the petitioner is found to be
responsible for the delay or violating any of the provisions of the Act, the Central
Information Commission will be competent to pass an appropriate order. Rs.
5,250/- deposited by the petitioner in this Court will be released to the petitioner.
The writ petition is disposed of.
Dasti to the counsel for the parties.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
AUGUST 24, 2009
NA
W.P.(C)19122/2006 Page 4
