Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/510/2017 on 8 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
ON THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021
BEFORE:
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 510 of 2017
BETWEEN:
Suman Agarwal. ..........Petitioner
(Mr. Jayvardhan Kandpal, Advocate)
AND:
State Information Commissioner,
Uttarakhand, Dehradun
and another. ....Respondents
(There is no representation for the respondents)
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is challenging the order dated
05.01.2017 passed by State Information
Commissioner, Uttarakhand in Appeal No. 21832 of
2016. By the said order, penalty of ` 25,000/- has
been imposed upon the petitioner for not providing
timely information to respondent no. 2.
2. The said penalty has been imposed on the
ground that some delay was caused in supplying the
desired information to respondent no. 2. The
information, which was sought by respondent no. 2,
was in respect of Delhi Public School, which is not a
Public Authority, as defined under Section 2 (h) of
Right to Information Act. However, the fact of the
matter is that the information was supplied to
respondent no. 2. Whatever delay was caused in
supplying the information, was beyond the control of
the petitioner, who was posted as Deputy Education
Officer, Bahadrabad, at the relevant point of time.
3. The application, under Section 6 (1) of
Right to Information Act, was made by respondent
no. 2 to District Education Officer, who had referred
the application to the petitioner for doing the needful.
Petitioner had asked the Principal, Delhi Public School,
Ranipur, Haridwar to supply information; but,
Principal, Delhi Public School had initially refused to
supply the information on the ground that it is not
bound to supply such information, however,
subsequently, on petitioner's persuasion, the desired
information was supplied by the Principal, Delhi Public
School to the petitioner which, in turn, was furnished
to respondent no. 2. Although, some delay was
caused in supplying the information, however, such
delay was beyond the control of the petitioner.
Petitioner did her best to get the information and the
information was also furnished to respondent no. 2 as
soon as the same was received from the concerned
school.
4. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the
case of Public Prescribed Authority & others Vs.
Uttarakhand State Information Commissioner &
others, reported in 2015 (1) U.D., 323, has held as
under:
"A plain reading of Sub-Section 1 of
Section 20 of the Act would reveal that
penalty can be imposed for delayed
information if delay was caused
without any valid reason.
In the present case, explanation
furnished by the petitioner before the
Chief Information Commissioner was
that concern file was not traceable in
the department and same was got
reconstructed later on and thereafter
information was supplied to the
applicant. Chief Information
Commissioner has nowhere observed
that explanation furnished by the
petitioner is a mere eye-wash and is
not reasonable.
In my considered opinion, if
explanation for delayed information is
reasonable and delay was caused due
to valid reasons then penalty should
not be imposed by invoking of Sub-
Section 1 of Section 20. Therefore,
impugned judgment does not sustain
in the eyes of law. Consequently, writ
petition is allowed. Impugned
judgment dated 13.12.2011 is hereby
quashed."
5. Thus, the penalty imposed upon the
petitioner appears to be unjust and uncalled for.
6. In such view of the matter, the impugned
order dated 05.01.2017 passed by State Information
Commissioner is set aside to the extent it relates to
imposing of penalty of ` 25,000/- upon the petitioner
for supplying delayed information to respondent no.
2.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed
to the extent indicated above.
(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.)
Arpan
