2008 (2) TMI 787 - HC - Indian Laws

Penalty - Reasonable cause - whether a State Information Commission could impose penalty under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005? Held that - As applicant-respondent No. 3 had originally filed application for obtaining information on 16-10-2006 before the petitioner and the information was required to be furnished to him within a period of 30 days as per the provisions of Section 7(1) of the Act. The information was not furnished to him and accordingly he filed an appeal before the Commission which was Second Appellate Authority on 1-2-2006 apparently for the reason that the First Appellate Authority was not constituted. However, the Commission relegated the applicant-respondent No. 3 to the First Appellate Authority and the First Appellate Authority could not furnish information within 30 days and consequently he preferred further appeal. The First Appellate Authority itself was constituted on 2-3-2007 and no first appeal was competent. Moreover, the appeal was filed before the Commission on 20-2-2007 after awaiting period of 30 days from the date of filing the application on 16-10-2006. Even if the period of 90 days is applied which is prescribed for second appeal, the appeal was within limitation. Therefore, the argument raised by the learned counsel cannot, thus, be sustained and the same is also rejected.

Summary

Issues:
- Imposition of penalty by State Information Commission under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 for delay in furnishing information.
- Applicability of sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act.
- Requirement of training for public authorities as per Section 26 of the Act.
- Maintainability of second appeal without filing a first appeal.

Analysis:

1. Imposition of Penalty by State Information Commission:
The case involved a petition challenging the penalty imposed by the State Information Commission under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 for a delay in furnishing information as per Section 7(1) of the Act. The Commission imposed a penalty of Rs. 19,250 for a delay of 77 days in providing the required information. The petitioner failed to show any reasonable cause for the delay, leading to the imposition of the penalty.

2. Applicability of Section 20(2) of the Act:
The petitioner argued that sub-section (2) of Section 20, which allows penalties for persistent delays without reasonable cause, was not applicable in this case. The court rejected this argument, stating that the Commission had the authority to penalize public authorities for simple delays in furnishing information as per Section 7(1) of the Act. The Commission was not invoking sub-section (2) of Section 20 for disciplinary action against the Public Information Officer.

3. Training Requirement for Public Authorities:
The petitioner contended that the Commission should have considered the lack of training programs for public authorities as required by Section 26 of the Act before imposing a penalty. However, the court dismissed this argument, emphasizing that the petitioners were obligated to comply with the Act's provisions regardless of training programs. The failure to organize training programs did not exempt the petitioner from penalties for delays in providing information.

4. Maintainability of Second Appeal:
Regarding the maintainability of a second appeal without filing a first appeal, the court clarified that as per Section 19(3) of the Act, after waiting for 90 days, the applicant could approach the Second Appellate Authority. In this case, the applicant had followed the prescribed procedure by filing appeals after the required waiting periods, making the second appeal maintainable.

5. Final Decision:
After considering all arguments, the court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it. The penalty imposed by the State Information Commission for the delay in furnishing information was upheld, emphasizing the importance of timely compliance with the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005.