9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 787X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rst 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. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the required information. The University had constituted the First Appellate Authority on 2-3-2007 under the Act. Consequently, the applicant-respondent No. 3 approached the Second Appellate Authority again on 20-2-2007. The petitioner filed the reply before the Second Appellate Authority on 23-7-2007 (P-2) raising preliminary objection that applicant-respondent No. 3 should have approached the First Appellate Authority in the first instance, eventually the Commission allowed the appeal filed by applicant-respondent No. 3 vide order dated 1-8-2007 and issued direction to the petitioners to allow applicant-respondent No. 3 to inspect the record. The needful was done by the petitioners as per the direction issued. It was thereafter the Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... easonable cause for this delay. Therefore, in exercise of powers conferred under section 20(1) of the RTI Act, a penalty of Rs. 19,250/- for 77 days delay in furnishing the information in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 7 is imposed on the respondent. He shall deposit the penalty amount in the Commission s head of Account 0070-Administrative Services-60-Other receipts, DDO Code-0049 within 20 days of the receipt of this order under information to the Commission. Announced. To be communicated. 3. Dr. Balram Gupta, learned Senior Advocate has made three submissions before us. Firstly, he has submitted that sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act would not apply unless findings are recorded that the petitioner has been persistently d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal is of the opinion that the 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 or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... empowered under sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act to recommend disciplinary action against such State/Central Public Information Officer under the service rules applicable to such officers. However, the present is not the case of that nature because the Commission has not been invoked under sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act. Hence, the argument raised is wholly misconceived and is hereby rejected. 6. The second submission that lenient view should have been taken on account of failure of the Government to organise any programme to train public authorities as envisaged by Section 26 of the Act is equally without merit. The Act has come in force in the year 2005 and the petitioners were required to constitute the Public Informa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ond 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 lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
