2015 (2) TMI 216 - HC - Indian Laws

Penalty u/s 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 - Delay in providing information - held that - when the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, while hearing the complaint or appeal, is of the opinion that Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 or mala fidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request, in that event penalty can be imposed. In the further opinion of this Court, if there was reasonable cause for furnishing the delayed information then Chief Information Commissioner should not impose penalty merely because there was some delay in supplying the information. Appellant was not present before the Appellate Authority at the time when the appeal was taken up for hearing for the reason he had already received the information. Moreover, the explanation furnished by the petitioner before respondent No. 1 that he had directed the Head Clerk to supply the information immediately but information could not be supplied before his transfer for the reason that entire staff of the Municipal Board was engaged in the collection of data and preparation of the voter identity card under the order of Collector, Rudrapur and was busy in the rescue work after natural calamity happened in June, 2013, seems to be reasonable ground for non-supplying the information within time. - Consequently, imposition of penalty on hypertechnical ground that information was not supplied within thirty days seems to be totally unjustified and arbitrary - Decided in favour of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Penalty imposed under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 for delayed information provision.

Analysis:
The judgment concerns a penalty imposed against the petitioner under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 for providing delayed information to the respondent. The petitioner, an Executive Officer of a Municipal Board, received an application from the respondent, a practicing Advocate, seeking certain information. While some information was provided on time, other details were supplied with a delay. The petitioner explained that the delay was due to the staff's engagement in data collection, voter identity card preparation, and rescue work post a natural disaster, which hindered the prompt furnishing of information.

The court analyzed Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, emphasizing that penalties can be imposed if information is not provided without reasonable cause. The judge highlighted that if there was a valid reason for the delay, the penalty should not be imposed solely based on the delay in supplying information. In this case, the respondent did not appear during the appeal hearing, indicating satisfaction with the information received. Additionally, the petitioner's explanation of staff engagement in essential tasks due to a natural calamity was deemed a reasonable ground for the delay in providing information.

Consequently, the court found the imposition of a penalty for the delay in supplying information to be unjustified and arbitrary. The judgment allowed the writ petition, thereby quashing the order dated 10-9-2013 that imposed the penalty. The decision was based on the understanding that the delay was justified due to exceptional circumstances, including the natural disaster and the subsequent engagement of the Municipal Board staff in critical tasks, leading to the delayed provision of information.