Delhi High Court
Damodar Valley Corporation & Ors. vs Modh Rafique Ansari & Anr on 17 April, 2012
Author: A.K.Sikri
*
[
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 17th April, 2012
+ LPA 288/2011
% DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION & ORS. ....Appellants
Through: Mr. Janakalyan Das, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Ritin Rai & Mr. Swetaketu
Mishra, Advs.
Versus
MODH RAFIQUE ANSARI & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. R.R. David, Mr. F. Mathew,
Advs. for R-1.
Mr. S.K. Dubey, Adv. for R-2.
AND
LPA 646/2011
MODH RAFIQUE ANSARI ....Appellant
Through: Mr. R.R. David & Mr. F. Mathew,
Advs.
Versus
DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION & ANR. ... Respondents
Through: Mr. Janakalyan Das, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Ritin Rai & Mr. Swetaketu
Mishra, Advs. for R-1 to 4.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
JUDGMENT
A.K. SIKRI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
[
1. Both appeals arise from the common order dated 11th February, 2011
of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 8309/2008 and W.P.(C) No.
7318/2009 preferred by Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC) and Union of
India respectively; both writ petitions impugned the orders dated 4th July,
2008 and 22nd August, 2008 of the Central Information Commission (CIC).
2. Mohd. Rafique Ansari (information seeker) claims to be a physically
challenged person; he further claims that, his land was acquired for setting
up of the project of DVC in Maithon, Jharkhand; DVC had a scheme for
rehabilitation of such oustees, by providing employment; that he was
however not given benefit thereof. The information seeker vide letter dated
15th January, 2008 sought information about the employment so provided by
DVC in accordance with "the Rehabilitation Scheme aforesaid".
3. Upon the matter ultimately reaching the CIC, the CIC vide order
dated 4th July, 2008 issued certain directions to the Chairman, DVC to
investigate the matter relating to rehabilitation of ousted/displaced persons
and for submission of a report in that regard; vide the same order opinion
was also formed of the Public Information Officer (PIO) of DVC being in
default and notice was given to him under Section 20 of the Right to
Information Act, 2005, to show cause against the imposition of penalty.
4. The CIC vide subsequent order dated 22nd August, 2008 imposed
maximum penalty of ` 25,000/- on DVC and further directed the same to be
recovered from the PIO of DVC.
5. The learned Single Judge has vide judgment impugned in this appeal
and relying on National Thermal Power Corporation v. Mohd. Samad
Khan 168 (2010) DLT 141 set aside the directions issued by the CIC to the
Chairman, DVC; the same has been held to be outside the scope and powers
of CIC. The learned Single Judge however refused to interfere with the
imposition of penalty.
6. In so far as the appeal preferred by the information seeker is
concerned, we do not find any merit as we find that the learned Single Judge
is right in concluding that the directions issued were/are wholly outside the
scope and powers of CIC under the Act. Accordingly LPA 646/2011 is
dismissed.
7. Coming to the appeal filed by DVC against the imposition of penalty
of Rs.25,000/-, perusal of order dated 22.8.2008 would show that the CIC
was mainly influenced by the fact that there had been inordinate delay in
furnishing the information. In paras 10 and 11 of the impugned order, the
CIC recorded as under:
"10. From the records, it further appears that the first
response to the request under the RTI Act was sent by the
PIO vide his letter dated May 22, 2008. The department
has duly acknowledged the receipt of the RTI application
dated 15.1.2008 and also the first appeal dated 20.2.2008.
The PIO, apart from intimating the applicant on
25.1.2008 that the matter is under process, did not
provide any information to the applicant. The Public
Authority has also acknowledged the receipt of the first
appeal dated 20.2.2008 on 27.2.2008. The response to
this appeal petition was given after about a month on
26.3.2008 asking the appellant to submit copies of some
document but no information perse was provided till May
22, 2008. Thus, the response was given after four
months and as such there is inordinate delay of over four
months.
11. Under the circumstances, since there is an
unexplained delay of over 100 days, and that without
furnishing the required information in a truthful manner,
the PIO is liable to pay a maximum penalty of
Rs.25,000/- u/s 20(1) of the Act."
8. No doubt, in para 20, while summing up the position, the CIC has
stated that CPIO had given contradictory and misleading information and,
therefore, is liable to pay the maximum penalty of `25,000/-. The counsel
for DVC on the basis thereof argues that the penalty is imposed on grounds
other than for which show cause notice was given. However, perusal of
paras 10 and 11 would show that the penalty was mainly imposed because
of delay in furnishing the information. This penalty imposed by the CIC has
been upheld by the learned Single Judge. When we find the discretionary
powers exercised by the CIC are affirmed by the learned Single Judge also,
we do not see any reason to interfere with such a direction, particularly
having regard to the fact that the applicant is a disabled person who has
been waiting for suitable consideration for the last three years. However,
having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the
opinion that this penalty be not recovered from the PIO of DVC and DVC
shall pay this amount.
9. With these observations/departure, appeal of DVC also is dismissed.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
APRIL 17, 2012
pk/pp ..
