2013 (9) TMI 1011 - HC - Indian Laws

Non supply of information sought under RTI Act - Imposition of penalty - informations relating to the persons who are availing of old age pension - Held that - Applicant namely, Bhuveneshwar Modi has preferred applications dated 19-7-2011, 27-9-2011 and 24-10-2011 seeking diverse informations. Some of the informations sought by the applicant are definitely neither in the public interest nor within the ambit of the Right to Information Act, 2005. One of such informations would relate to disclosure of total number of persons in the Block who had been receiving pension illegally by suppressing their actual age and the truth. The information sought at serial No. 4 in application dated 19-7-2011 of the applicant would relate to disclosure of name of officers at whose instance financial scam in the country happened. I am of the definite opinion that request for furnishing such informations, is an abuse of the provision contained in the Act and this aspect of the matter has been completely ignored by the Commission while dealing with the present matter. I further find that the petitioner on several occasions, made a request for permitting her authorised representative to appear in the matter and it has been recorded in the impugned order dated 24-9-2012 that on the last date, the petitioner could not appear before the Commission as her daughter was ill. - impugned order is liable to be quashed - Decided in favour of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of Chief Information Commissioner imposing penalty under Right to Information Act, 2005.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a Block Development Officer, challenged an order imposing a penalty of Rs. 10,000 passed by the Chief Information Commissioner for not providing extensive information sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005 within the statutory period. The petitioner argued that the information sought was not in public interest and the penalty was unjustified. The respondent supported the order, stating that the petitioner failed to reply to the show cause notice, justifying the penalty. The petitioner contended that the Commission did not follow the Act's procedure and that the original applicant was not a necessary party in the proceedings.

The Court examined the provisions of the Act, particularly Sections 18 and 20. Section 18 outlines the powers and functions of the Information Commission, while Section 20 deals with penalties for non-compliance. The Court noted that the Commission did not initiate an inquiry as required under Section 18(2) and did not follow the procedure for imposing a penalty under Section 20(1). The Court found that the information sought by the applicant was not entirely in public interest and amounted to an abuse of the Act's provisions. The petitioner had requested her representative to appear before the Commission, but the order did not consider this aspect.

Based on the facts and circumstances, the Court held that the order imposing the penalty was without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. The Court also directed the refund of the deducted penalty amount to the petitioner. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the impugned order and the penalty imposed.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the legal arguments presented, the examination of relevant provisions of the Act, and the Court's reasoning for quashing the penalty order.