Rajasthan High Court
Manoj Kumar Sharma S/O Late Mr. ... vs Rajasthan State Information ... on 21 March, 2022
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14657/2021
Manoj Kumar Sharma S/o Late Mr. Babulal Sharma, Aged About
51 Years, R/o A-175, Sanjay Nagar, Joshi Marg, Kalwar Road,
Jhotwara, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Information Commission, Through Its
Registrar, Jhalana Link Road, OTS Square, JLN Marg,
Jaipur.
2. R.P. Chaturvedi, SPIO Cum Deputy Secretary, Ayurved
And Indian Medical Department, Department Room No.
4205, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Chief Secretary,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashish Davessar
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
21/03/2022
This writ petition has been filed assailing the legality and
validity of the judgment dated 25.08.2021 passed by the
Rajasthan State Information Commission whereby, the second
appeal preferred by the petitioner under Right to Information Act,
2005 (for brevity, 'the Act of 2005'), has been disposed of in view
of assurance extended by the respondents to supply him the
requisite information within a period of 21 days.
Sole contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is
that once it was found that the information sought by the
(2 of 4) [CW-14657/2021]
petitioner-applicant was not supplied to him within the requisite
time, it was obligatory upon the respondent-Commission to have
imposed penalty upon the erring official as envisaged under
Section 20(1) of the Act of 2005. He submits that mere non-
supply of information within the stipulated period is sufficient to
warrant imposition of penalty as "shall" is used under Section
20(1). He, in support of his submission, relied upon a judgment of
the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP
No.17758/2014: Smt. Chander Kanta Vs. The State
Information Commission and Ors., dated 19.05.2016.
Heard. Considered.
For applicability of Section 20(1) of the Act of 2005, the
Central Information Commission or the State Information
Commission, has to be of the opinion at the time of deciding any
complaint/appeal that the Public Information Officer has:
(i) without any reasonable cause did not furnish information
within time specified; or
(ii) malafidely/denied the request for information; or
(iii) knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading
information; or
(iv) destroyed information; or
(v) obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information.
Thus, it is apparent that before a penalty under Section
20(1) can be imposed, a satisfaction of the concerned Information
Commission has to be recorded as to the existence of any one of
such contingencies as envisaged therein. It is not that penalty
under Section 20(1) of the Act of 2005 can be imposed as a
matter of course in each and every case where it is found that the
(3 of 4) [CW-14657/2021]
information was not furnished within the time specified under sub-
Section 1 of Section 7. In view of the mandatory provisions of
Sections 20(1), contentions of the learned counsel that mere
failure to supply the information within the time stipulated is
sufficient to warrant imposition of penalty, cannot be
countenanced.
The order impugned reads as under:
"7-izR;FkhZ ds izfrfuf/k us fuosnu fd;k gS fd fcUnq
la[;k 1 ds Øe esa lwpuk miyC/k djok, tkus
vFkok lacaf/kr nks"kh dkfeZd ds fo:} ,QvkbZvkj
ntZ djok dj bldh izfr vihykFkhZ dks izsf"kr fd,
tkus dk vk'oklu fn;kA
8-vihykFkhZ ds vk{ksi ,oa izR;FkhZ }kjk fn, x,
vk'oklu dks ns[krs gq, izR;FkhZ dks fufnZ"V fd;k
tkrk gS fd vksn'k izkfIr ds 21 fnol esa tfj,
iathd`r Mkd vihykFkhZ dks fcUnq la[;k 1 ds Øe esa
lwpuk miyC/k djok;k tkuk lqfuf'pr djsaA vU;Fkk
nks"kh dkfeZd ds fo:} ,QvkbZvkj ntZ djok dj
mldh izfrfyfi vihykFkhZ dks izsf"kr fd;k tkuk
lqfuf'pr djsaA
9-vLrq] vihy] mijksDrkuqlkj fuLrkfjr dh tkrh gSA
10-vkns'k dh izfr mHk; i{k dks izsf"kr gksA
11-fu.kZ; ?kksf"krA"
The order does not reveal recording of any such opinion/
satisfaction by the respondent-Commission as contemplated under
Section 20(1) so as to warrant imposition of penalty.
There is another important aspect of the matter. The order
does not reflect that the petitioner objected to disposal of the
second appeal in terms of assurance extended by the respondent
therein. It also does not reveal that he made any such request
before the Commission to impose penalty under Section 20 (1) of
the Act. Even the writ petition is bereft of any such averment that
despite his protest or despite his request for imposition of penalty,
the second appeal was disposed of in terms of assurance extended
(4 of 4) [CW-14657/2021]
by the respondent. In view thereof, this Court does not find any
merit in the writ petition.
This Court is in respectful agreement with the law laid down
by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in case of Smt.
Chander Kanta (surpa) but, it has no applicability in the facts
and circumstances of the case. Therein, after issuing notice to the
concerned Public Officer under Section 20(1) of the Act and
despite admission of his fault in response thereupon, the State
Information Commission warned the Public Officer to remain
careful in future. In these circumstances, it was held that either
the penalty has to be imposed under Section 20(1) of the Act of
2005 or no penalty is to be imposed but, the matter cannot be
dropped with warning as no such penalty is contemplated under
Section 20(1). As already observed, no such satisfaction/opinion
has been recorded by the State Information Commission in its
order impugned dated 25.08.2021 warranting imposition of
penalty thereunder.
In view thereof, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of
merit.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
MADAN/56
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
