2014 (6) TMI 84 - HC - Indian Laws

Penalty under s. 20(l) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 - Jurisdiction of Commission - Held that - It is evident from the order of the Commission dated January 9, 2009 that the Commission did not impose any penalty, though it could impose penalty on the petitioner against whom the first complaint dated January 2, 2009 was filed by the fourth respondent, but only directed the petitioner to give the fourth respondent all the information according to his s. 6 application. In his letter dated February 2, 2009 the petitioner clearly said that he had received the order of the Commission dated January 9, 2009 - It is wrong to say that the provisions of s. 20 were not applicable to the case. They are applicable to a complaint filed under s. 18 of the Act. It is not the case that the complaint did not make out any case under s. 18 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Admittedly, the petitioner did not respond to the fourth respondent s application for information dated November 4, 2008 till February 2, 2009. He complied with the s. l8 order of the Commission dated January 9, 2009 only on July 16, 2009. It is nor acceptable that once the petitioner complied with the order of the Commission dated January 9, 2009, though belatedly, penalty under s. 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 could not be imposed on him. Nor do I see any reason to accept the argument that in each and every case the Commission is not supposed to impose Rs. 250 penalty per day. - It is evident that in all the cases mentioned in sub-s. (1) of s. 20, it is the duty of the Commission to impose a Rs. 250 daily penalty till the application for information is received or the information is given. The only thing is that the total penalty amount should not exceed Rs. 25,000. The proportionality principle based on the gravity of the proven charge concept cannot apply to a case under s. 20. That will amount to unauthorised reduction of the penalty amount. A s. 20 case can be a case of penalty or no penalty, but not a case of reduced penalty - Commission has committed no wrong, and that the impugned order is not vitiated by any jurisdictional error - Decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the order of the West Bengal Information Commission imposing a penalty under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
2. Failure to provide requested information under the RTI Act.
3. Applicability and interpretation of Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
4. Justification for imposing the maximum penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.
5. Compliance with the Commission's order and imposition of penalty.
6. Proportionality of penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner challenged an order of the West Bengal Information Commission imposing a penalty under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The petitioner, as the State Public Information Officer of the Municipality, failed to provide requested information despite multiple directives and complaints filed by the fourth respondent.

2. The petitioner's failure to provide the requested information led to a series of complaints and appeals. The Commission found that the petitioner did not comply with the order to furnish information according to the application dated November 4, 2008, even after receiving multiple notices and opportunities to explain the non-compliance.

3. The petitioner argued that Section 20 of the RTI Act was not applicable to the case, citing various grounds such as not being a case of refusal to give information or obstruction. However, the Commission held that the petitioner's actions fell within the purview of Section 20(1) as he failed to provide the requested information promptly.

4. The Commission justified imposing the maximum penalty under Section 20(1) based on the petitioner's apathetic handling of the RTI application and delay in providing the information. The Commission emphasized the importance of timely disclosure of information and penalized the petitioner accordingly.

5. Despite the petitioner's eventual compliance with the Commission's order, the delay in providing the information and the petitioner's attempts to avoid penalty were considered. The Commission held that the petitioner's actions demonstrated a reluctance to adhere to the RTI Act, leading to the imposition of the penalty.

6. The Court upheld the Commission's decision, emphasizing that the penalty under Section 20(1) is mandatory and should be imposed until the information is provided, with a cap of Rs. 25,000. The Court rejected arguments for reduced penalty, stating that proportionality principles do not apply to Section 20 cases, and affirmed the Commission's order without finding any jurisdictional error.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the petition, allowing the petitioner to pay the penalty in installments as fixed by the Commission, to be deducted from his salary starting from a specified month.