2013 (11) TMI 1533 - HC - Indian Laws

Denial of information sought - Imposition of penalty- Held that - When any application is filed by the person who desires to obtain any information under the Right to Information Act, has to make request in writing or through electronic means in English or Hindi or in the official language of the area in which the application is being made, accompanying such fee as may be prescribed. - office of the petitioner did receive application on 30-11-2010 from respondent No. 2 praying therein, for seeking certain information. If such application is received, the public authority to which such application is made shall transfer the application or such part of it as may be appropriate to that other public authority and inform the applicant immediately about such transfer. - as it is evident from the perusal of the extract from the Register maintained by the office of the petitioner that, the application was received on 30-11-2010. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, the said application was forwarded to Talathi and B.D.O. on the same day, however the copy of relevant extract produced on record, in it s last column would show that, the said application was forwarded on 13-12-2010 to the Talathi of the concerned village and B.D.O. Panchayat Samiti. In this respect, proviso to Section 6 of the said Act becomes relevant. Said proviso provided that, the transfer of an application pursuant to this sub-section shall be made as soon as practicable but in no case later than five days from the date of receipt of the application. Therefore, in the facts of the present case as it is apparent that, though application was received on 30-11-2010, same was not forwarded to the concerned Talathi or B.D.O., till 13-12-2010. Therefore, upon careful perusal of observations/reasons recorded by respondent. No. 1, it appears that, even the petitioner could have furnished information as sought by respondent No. 2. This finding recorded by the respondent No. 1 is based upon the material placed on record. - The contention of the petitioner that, since the petitioner was not responsible to supply information and in absence of fastening liability on the B.D.O., and Talathi., no penalty could have been imposed upon the petitioner, deserves no consideration since penalty is imposed after recording finding that, even the petitioner could have supplied the said information, however, he tried to avoid to furnish such information as applicable to Service Tax prayed by respondent No. 2 in his application dated 30-11-2010. - Decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order passed by State Information Officer under Right to Information Act, 2005; Allegation of wrong remedy chosen by respondent; Imposition of penalty on petitioner; Non-consideration of first appeal by respondent; Review of order by petitioner pending before respondent; Responsibility of Naib Tahsildar in providing information; Allegation of penalty being exorbitant; Non-consideration of provisions of the Act by respondent; Lack of reasonable opportunity of hearing before imposing penalty; Transfer of application under Section 6 of the Act; Failure to forward application promptly to concerned authorities.

Analysis:
The judgment concerns a writ petition challenging an order passed by the State Information Officer under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The petitioner, a Naib Tahsildar, received an application for information from respondent No. 2, which was forwarded to the concerned Talathi and Block Development Officer for necessary action. However, respondent No. 2 chose the wrong remedy by filing a second appeal instead of a first appeal. The petitioner argued that he cannot be held responsible for providing the information directly as it pertains to other officials. The petitioner also contended that the penalty imposed was excessive and contrary to the Act's provisions.

The petitioner's counsel highlighted the provisions of Section 5 of the Act, emphasizing the roles of Talathi and B.D.O. in providing information. The petitioner's representation for a review of the order had not been decided by the respondent. The counsel argued that the petitioner, as a Naib Tahsildar, is not obligated to provide information directly without receiving it from the relevant authorities. The petitioner's submission was supported by entries in the Register maintained under the RTI Act, showing the timely forwarding of the application to the appropriate officers.

The respondent argued that the penalty imposed was justified, and the court should not interfere with the order. The court carefully considered the submissions and relevant provisions of the Act. Section 6 of the Act was analyzed, emphasizing the requirement to promptly transfer applications to the relevant authorities. The court noted discrepancies in the forwarding of the application, as it was not done promptly as required by the Act.

The court addressed the petitioner's contention regarding the first appeal and the responsibility of B.D.O. and Talathi in providing information. The court observed that the petitioner could have supplied the information sought by respondent No. 2 based on the material on record. The court found that the penalty was imposed after considering the petitioner's actions and providing an opportunity for the petitioner to present his case. Ultimately, the court upheld the decision of the second appellate authority, finding it reasonable and based on the material placed on record, and dismissed the writ petition.