Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurnam Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 20 November, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:147007
CWP-26006-2023 1 2023:PHHC:147007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
***
CWP-26006-2023
Date of decision : 20.11.2023
Gurnam Singh
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr. Deepak Goyal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.Ferry Sofat, Addl.A.G. Punjab.
VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)
1. This is a civil writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the
Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction
especially in the nature of certiorari for quashing of impugned order dated
07.08.2023 (Annexure P-12) passed by respondent no.2 whereby appeal
bearing no.2841 of 2021 titled as "Gurnam Singh vs. Public Information
Officer Sub Division Nabha and another" filed by the petitioner has been
disposed of and the case has been closed in his absence.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that vide
application dated 01.02.2021 the petitioner had applied under the Right to
Information Act seeking information on 10 points. It is further submitted
that when the complete information was not provided, the petitioner had
filed the first appeal and thereafter, second appeal was filed and in the said
appeal, various orders were passed including the order dated 20.07.2022 in
which direction was given to the respondent authorities to file reply/written
1 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:147007
CWP-26006-2023 2 2023:PHHC:147007
submission. It is submitted that when the matter came up for hearing on
07.08.2023 in the presence of the petitioner, one last opportunity was given
to the respondent to file reply and the case was adjourned for 13.09.2023 as
the respondent was absent and the present petitioner was present. It is
further submitted that thereafter, behind the back of the petitioner, the
respondent appeared and the matter was taken up again and the reply was
submitted by the respondent and the State Information Commissioner,
Punjab, without passing any speaking order and by merely mentioning that
the authority had gone through the reply and agreed with the reply, disposed
of the case. It is stated that apart from the fact that the impugned order is in
grave violation of the principle of natural justice, the same is also against
various judgments passed by this Court including judgment of this Court
passed in CWP-17672-2023 titled as "Rajwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab
and others" decided on 16.08.2023 and thus, at any rate, the impugned
order deserves to be set aside and the second appeal filed by the petitioner
deserves to be decided after hearing the petitioner and after considering the
judgment passed by this Court in Rajwinder Singh's case (supra) by
passing a speaking order.
3. Learned State counsel has submitted that the State Information
Commissioner, Punjab would reconsider the matter and decide the second
statutory appeal, in accordance with law and also the directions issued by
this Court in Rajwinder Singh's case (supra) and other related matters, by
passing a speaking order after hearing the petitioner, expeditiously.
4. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has
perused the paper book.
5. The impugned order dated 07.08.2023 is reproduced
hereinbelow:-
2 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:147007
CWP-26006-2023 3 2023:PHHC:147007
"ORDER
This order may be read with reference to the previous order dated
28.07.2023.
2. The perusal of the file shows that on the previous date of hearing,
the appellant had given in writing that he does not need the amount of
compensation. The same has been mentioned in the orders dated
28.07.2023. Hence, the amount of compensation is, hereby, waived of.
Further, it is observed that the appellant has filed his submission in the
Commission. I have gone through the same and do not agree with the
same and hence the plea of the appellant is rejected.
3. The respondent is absent today.
4. Taking a lenient view, one last opportunity is given to the respondent to
file point wise reply.
5. To come up on 13.09.2023 at 12.00 PM for further proceedings in the
Commission.
Copy of the order be sent to the parties.
Date: 7th August, 2023 Sd/-
(Amrit Partap Singh Sekhon)
State Information Commissioner
Punjab
Note: After the order was dictated in the open court, the respondent Sh.
Khush Pal Singh, SDE appeared alongwith point-wise reply. I have gone
through the same and have agreed. Copy of the reply, as submitted by the
respondent be sent to the appellant alongwith these orders.
In view of the foregoing, no further cause of action is left, hence
the above said appeal case filed by the appellant is disposed of and closed.
Copy of the order be sent to the parties.
Date: 7 August, 2023 Sd/-
(Amrit Partap Singh Sekhon)
State Information Commissioner
Punjab
A perusal of the above order dated 07.08.2023 would show that
initially the case was taken up and since the respondent was absent, one last
opportunity was granted to the respondent to file point wise reply and the
matter was adjourned for 13.09.2023. Thereafter, the matter was again taken
up on 07.08.2023, and it was observed that the respondent had appeared and
the point wise reply had been seen by the State Information Commissioner,
3 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:147007
CWP-26006-2023 4 2023:PHHC:147007
Punjab and he had agreed with the same. It is the case of the petitioner that
the latter part of the order was passed in his absence and thus, there is
violation of the principle of natural justice. At any rate, the impugned order
is non-speaking and is in absolute violation of the law laid down by this
Court in Rajwinder Singh's case (supra), CWP-1877-2022 titled as
"Gagnish Singh Khurana vs. State of Punjab and others" and CWP-
15500-2023 titled as "Gopal Krishan Gupta vs. Central Information
Commission and others". The relevant portion of the judgment in
Rajinwder Singh's case (supra) is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"9. This Court in another judgment dated 21.07.2023 passed in CWP-15500-
2023 titled as "Gopal Krishan Gupta Vs. Central Information Commission and
others", while dealing with a cryptic and non-speaking order passed by the
Central Information Commissioner under Section 19(3) read with Section 20 of
the Act of 2005, had observed as under:-
"5. Relevant portion of the order dated 28.02.2023 (Annexure P11) is
reproduced herein below: -
"The fact is that no final point-wise reply was provided on
any of the points to the appellant as per the record.
In view of the same, the CPIO is directed to provide a final
consolidated reply on all the points as provided by the concerned
custodians within 7 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly."
6. A perusal of the above-said order would show that after considering the
entire matter, the Information Commissioner was of the opinion that no
final point-wise reply has been provided to the appellant as per the record
and thus, had directed the CPIO to provide a final consolidated reply on
all the points as provided by the concerned custodians within 7 days from
the date of receipt of this order. However, instead of waiting for the reply,
the Information Commissioner disposed of the appeal without final
adjudication of the matter and that the said procedure is not in
accordance with law.
7. A perusal of Section 19 of the RTI Act would show that under sub-
Section 3, an aggrieved person has a right to file the second appeal before
the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission
and that, under sub-section (8), the Central Information Commission has
been given several powers including the power requiring the public
authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or detriment suffered
4 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:147007
CWP-26006-2023 5 2023:PHHC:147007
or to impose any of the penalties provided under the Act. Section 19 of the
RTI Act, is reproduced herein below: -
"19. Appeal.--(1) Any person who, does not receive a decision
within the time specified in sub-section (1) or clause (a) of sub-
section (3) of section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central
Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as
the case may be, may within thirty days from the expiry of such
period or from the receipt of such a decision prefer an appeal to
such officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information
Officer or State Public Information Officer as the case may be, in
each public authority:
Provided that such officer may admit the appeal after the
expiry of the period of thirty days if he or she is satisfied that the
appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal
in time.
(2) Where an appeal is preferred against an order made by a
Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information
Officer, as the case may be, under section 11 to disclose third party
information, the appeal by the concerned third party shall be made
within thirty days from the date of the order.
(3) A second appeal against the decision under sub-section (1)
shall lie within ninety days from the date on which the decision
should have been made or was actually received, with the Central
Information Commission or the State Information Commission:
Provided that the Central Information Commission or the State
Information Commission, as the case may be, may admit the appeal
after the expiry of the period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the
appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal
in time.
(4) If the decision of the Central Public Information Officer or
State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, against which
an appeal is preferred relates to information of a third party, the
Central Information Commission or State Information
Commission, as the case may be, shall give a reasonable
opportunity of being heard to that third party.
(5) In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a
request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information
Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be,
who denied the request.
(6) An appeal under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be
disposed of within thirty days of the receipt of the appeal or within
such extended period not exceeding a total of forty-five days from
5 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:147007
CWP-26006-2023 6 2023:PHHC:147007
the date of filing thereof as the case may be, for reasons to be
recorded in writing.
(7) The decision of the Central Information Commission or State
Information Commission, as the case may be, shall be binding.
(8) In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State
Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to--
(a) require the public authority to take any such steps as may be
necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of this Act,
including--
(i) by providing access to information, if so requested, in a
particular form;
(ii) by appointing a Central Public Information Officer or
State Public Information Officer, as the case may be; (iii)
by publishing certain information or categories of
information;
(iv) by making necessary changes to its practices in relation
to the maintenance, management and destruction of
records;
(v) by enhancing the provision of training on the right to
information for its officials;
(vi) by providing it with an annual report in compliance
with clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 4;
(b) require the public authority to compensate the
complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;
(c) impose any of the penalties provided under this Act; (d)
reject the application.
(9) The Central Information Commission or State Information
Commission, as the case may be, shall give notice of its decision,
including any right of appeal, to the complainant and the public
authority.
(10) The Central Information Commission or State Information
Commission, as the case may be, shall decide the appeal in
accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed.
8. Section 20 of the RTI Act provides that in case, the Central Information
Commission at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal, is of the
opinion that the Central Public Information Officer has, without any
reasonable cause, not furnished information within the time specified
under subsection (1) of Section 7 or has malafidely denied the request for
information etc., then, it is empowered to impose a penalty of two hundred
and fifty rupees each day till the information is furnished. Section 20 of the
RTI Act is reproduced as under: -
"20. Penalties.--(1) Where the Central Information Commission or
6 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:147007
CWP-26006-2023 7 2023:PHHC:147007
the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time
of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the
Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information
Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause,
refused to receive an application for information or has not
furnished information within the time specified under sub-section
(1) of section 7 or 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 fumishing the information, it shall 16
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 Central Public Information Officer or the
State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given
a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is
imposed on him:
Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted
reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public
Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the
case may be.
(2) Where the Central Information Commission or the State
Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of
deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central
Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer,
as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause and
persistently, failed to receive an application for information or has
not furnished information within the time specified under sub-
section (1) of section 7 or 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 recommend for disciplinary action against the
Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information
Officer, as the case may be, under the service rules applicable to
him."
9. A conjoint reading of the above reproduced provisions would show that
once a second appeal has been filed by an aggrieved person, then, after
considering all the aspects, the matter is required to be finally
adjudicated. In case, the Information Commissioner is of the opinion that
the ingredients, as specified in Section 20 of the RTI Act are met,
7 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:147007
CWP-26006-2023 8 2023:PHHC:147007
appropriate action is also required to be taken. In the present case, after
prima facie holding in favour of the petitioner with respect to points No.
(a) and (b) and after directing the CPIO to file a revised reply, the appeals
have been disposed of by respondent No.2 without waiting for the said
reply and without finally adjudicating the matter and thus, to the said
extent, the impugned order deserves to be set aside"
The State Information Commissioner, Punjab, while adjudicating the
second statutory appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 19(3) of the Act of
2005 was acting as a quasi judicial authority and was, therefore, required to
adjudicate the case after considering the facts of the case, pleas raised by both the
parties and was required to record reasons for rejecting the pleas of one party
and accepting the pleas of the other party by passing a reasoned order. The
order should have been self-explanatory and reasons given in the same should
not have been rubber stamp reasons. The same has not been done in the present
case and the impugned order passed is cryptic and non-speaking as has been
detailed in para 7 of the present order.
10. Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances, the present Civil Writ
Petition is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 06.03.2023 (Annexure P-
9) is set aside and the matter is remanded to the State Information Commissioner,
Punjab for deciding Appeal Case No.452 of 2023 afresh after giving an
opportunity of hearing to the contesting parties. The State Information
Commissioner, Punjab, is directed to pass a speaking order dealing with the
contentions raised by both the parties. The parties through their counsel are
directed to appear before the State Information Commissioner, Punjab, on
24.08.2023.
11. It is, however, made clear that this Court has not given any final opinion on
the merits of the case and it would be open to the State Information
Commissioner, Punjab, to consider the case independently and in accordance
with law.
12. This Court has found that in a large number of cases, the authorities
including the first Appellate Authority {(while adjudicating the first statutory
appeal under Section 19(1)} and the second Appellate Authority {(while
adjudicating the second statutory appeal under Section 19(3)} under the Act, have
been passing cryptic and non-speaking orders in violation of the judgments
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts and also in
violation of the mandate of the Act of 2005. It is, thus, found necessary to give the
following directions to the first Appellate Authority and second Appellate
Authority under the Act of 2005 to clearly specify the following at the time of
finally adjudicating the case:-
i) The points on which the information is sought by the applicant as per
his/her application filed under the Act of 2005.
ii) The point-wise reply with respect to the information sought.
8 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:147007
CWP-26006-2023 9 2023:PHHC:147007
iii) A categorical finding as to whether the information on any of the
points has been supplied or not and if supplied, the date on which it has
been supplied.
iv) In case, it is the stand of the authorities from whom the information is
sought that the information sought under a particular point is not to be
supplied on account of any bar contained in any provisions of the Act of
2005 or for any other reason, then, after recording the said stand and
after considering the submissions made by both the parties with respect to
said point/issue, return a finding with respect to the said issue/point.
v) Any other observation which the authority deems fit in the facts and
circumstances of the case to be recorded.
13. The Chief Secretary to the States of Punjab & Haryana and the Advisor to the
Administrator, Chandigarh are directed to circulate the judgment passed in the
present case i.e. CWP-17672-2023 titled as "Rajwinder Singh Vs. State of
Punjab and others" and the judgment dated 13.07.2023 passed in CWP-1877-
2022 titled as "Gagnish Singh Khurana Vs. State of Punjab and others" as well
as the judgment dated 21.07.2023 passed in CWP-15500-2023 titled as "Gopal
Krishan Gupta Vs. Central Information Commission and others", to all the
authorities constituted under the Act for complying with the same."
6. As per the above said judgment, since this Court had found that
in large number of cases, non-speaking orders were being passed, thus,
directions were given as contained in paragraph 12 of the said judgment,
and the said judgment along with the other two judgments passed by this
Court, were directed to be circulated to all the authorities constituted under
the Act for complying with the same. The impugned order passed in the
present case is not in consonance with the judgments passed by this Court
in Rajwinder Singh's case (supra), Gagnish Singh Khurana's case (supra)
and Gopal Krishan Gupta's case (supra) and thus, deserves to be set aside
on the said ground alone and is accordingly, set aside and respondent no.2
is directed to decide the second appeal filed by the petitioner dated
02.06.2021 afresh after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to make
submissions and after passing a speaking order in compliance with the
9 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:147007
CWP-26006-2023 10 2023:PHHC:147007
judgment passed by this Court in Rajwinder Singh's case (supra).
7. It is made clear that this Court has not opined on the merits of
the case and respondent no.2 would consider the case independently, in
accordance with law, expeditiously.
(VIKAS BAHL)
JUDGE
November 20, 2023.
Davinder Kumar
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:147007
10 of 10
