Delhi High Court
Mrs. R. Renuka vs Union Of India And Anr. on 9 March, 2015
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3188/2012 & CM No. 6828/2012
MRS. R.RENUKA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr A.K. Shukla, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr Anil Soni, CGSC with Mr Naginder
Benipal, Adv. for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
ORDER
% 09.03.2015
1. This petition is directed against the order dated 30.04.2012 passed by
the Central Information Commission (CIC). The petitioner is aggrieved by
the order passed as it imposes a penalty of Rs. 25000/- on her, which as per
the impugned order, was directed to be recovered from the salary of the
petitioner at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per month. The employer of the
petitioner, at the relevant point in time, was Andhra Bank. The petitioner, I
am told, since then, has opted for voluntary retirement from service.
2. The impugned order, it appears, came to be passed in view of the
petitioner denying information to respondent no.2 on the ground that the
information pertained to a matter which was subjudice before the Civil
Judge at Dwarka, New Delhi. In the petition it is averred that the father of
the petitioner was involved in the litigation pending before the
aforementioned Judge.
3. It appears, respondent no.2 had sought information with regard to
installation of ATMs at rented premises, and also, specific information
regarding ATMs installed at Shop No. 7 & 8, located at Rama/Rana Market,
Munirka Village, New Delhi - 67. As indicated above, this information was
denied by the petitioner vide order dated 04.10.2011.
3.1 Respondent no.2 being aggrieved, preferred an appeal before the First
Appellate Authority (FAA). This appeal was preferred on 31.10.2011.
Evidently, by an order dated 20.01.2012, the FAA allowed the appeal and
directed that respondent no.2 be furnished requisite information sought for
by him.
3.2 Since information was not forthcoming, respondent no.2, in the
meanwhile, preferred an appeal with the CIC.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that this appeal was, however,
filed by respondent no.2, on 24.01.2012 vide diary no. 104418. A
photocopy of the index of the appeal filed by respondent no.2, has been
placed before me in court.
5. To complete the narrative, the CIC vide order dated 03.04.2012,
allowed the appeal, qua issues which perhaps had already been addressed by
the FAA
5.1 The CIC, it appears, was handicapped, on account of the fact that
respondent no.2, who was an appellant before it, was not present. The
impugned order, which is passed on 30.04.2012, was a consequential order
passed by the CIC, in exercise of its power under Section 20 of the Right to
Information Act, 2005.
6. Notice in this petition was issued on 24.05.2012 when, the
impugned order was stayed. Since then, respondent no.2 has been served, as
per the report of the registry. Despite service, respondent no.2 has not
entered appearance. Consequently, respondent no.2 is proceeded ex-parte.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that under a bonafide error, the
petitioner, who was the PIO at the relevant point in time, declined to give
information to respondent no.2, as the matter was subjudice.
7.1 Learned counsel further submits that, in any event, information was
ordered to be provided by the FAA prior to respondent no.2 approaching the
CIC; a fact which was not disclosed by respondent no.2 in his appeal filed
before the CIC. In these circumstances, the learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the impugned order be set aside. In support of this
submission, it is also stated that the petitioner is not a person of substantial
financial means, having retired from service.
8. Learned counsel for respondent no.1, however, draws my attention to
the fact that the petitioner supplied the necessary information to respondent
no.2, only on 19.04.2012, nearly three (3) months after the order had been
passed by the FAA.
9. I have perused the record. It is quite evident that the petitioner has
been derelict in supplying the information, which was required to be
supplied to respondent no.2. As a matter of fact, the petitioner did not
supply the information even after the order had been passed by the FAA on
20.01.2012 and waited till, the order of the CIC dated 03.04.2012, was
served upon her.
10. In these circumstances, the direction issued by the CIC, imposing
penalty on the petitioner does not seem to be erroneous. However, having
regard to the fact that the petitioner has retired from service and does not
have the necessary financial wherewithal, the penalty imposed is reduced
from Rs. 25000/- to Rs. 10000/-. The amount will be deposited by the
petitioner within two week from today.
11. The petition and the application are, accordingly, disposed of.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
MARCH 09, 2015
kk
