9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 84X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... application under s. 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 to the State Public Information Officer, Department of Municipal Affairs, Government of West Bengal on November 4, 2008. He requested Uttarpara-Kotrung Municipality to give him the information specified in the application. By a letter dated November 6, 2008 the Municipal Affairs Department transferred the application to the State Public Information Officer and the Chairman of the Municipality. 3. While the petitioner, the State Public Information Officer of the Municipality, did not do anything, the Chairman thereof wrote a letter dated December 1, 2008. The relevant parts of the letter are quoted below :- "Your application under Right to Information Act, 2005 is vague in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er where his place of residence is. The Commission, therefore, orders that the information as sought for by the applicant shall be furnished by the State Public Information Officer of the municipality within a fortnight from the date of receipt of this order." 6 The petitioner wrote a letter dated February 2, 2009 asking the fourth respondent to give him a copy of the application for information dated November 4, 2008. Accordingly, with a covering letter dated February 6, 2009 the fourth respondent gave him a copy of the application for information dated November 4, 2008. 7. In spite of receipt of a copy of the application for information dated November 4, 2008 once again on February 13, 2009 and the order of the Commission da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he order of the Commission. A copy of the petitioner's letter dated April 20, 2009 is at p. 43 of the WP. It was written to the fourth respondent for informing the fourth respondent that in spite of best efforts the information wanted by the fourth respondent could not be supplied. 11. After considering the petitioner's reply to the show cause notice, the Commission issued a notice dated June 25, 2009 fixing July 23, 2009 for personal hearing. It is only thereafter that with a covering letter dated July 16, 2009 the petitioner gave the fourth respondent all the information according to his application dated November 4, 2008. The Commission heard the petitioner and held that he was liable to suffer Rs. 25,000 penalty. 12. The rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fide, nor a case of knowingly giving incorrect, incomplete or misleading information, nor a case of destruction of the information which was the subject of the request, nor a case of obstructing any information. 14. Mr. Ghoshal's further argument is this. In any case, s. 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 could not be applied to the case, because, though belatedly, the petitioner, not a legally trained person, gave the fourth respondent all the information according to his s. 6 application. Even if s. 20 was applicable, on the facts of the case, the maximum penalty could not be imposed; for the legislation did not contemplate imposition of the maximum penalty in each and every case irrespective of the gravity of the proven char ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner clearly said that he had received the order of the Commission dated January 9, 2009. 19. Once again the Chairman of the Municipality took a curious step. He filed an appeal against the order of the Commission dated January 9, 2009. The next curious step was taken by the petitioner and it was that he wrote the letter dated April 20, 2009 addressed to the fourth respondent regarding withdrawal of the Chairman's appeal. In his reply to the show cause notice issued on the basis of the fourth respondent's second s. 18 complaint, the petitioner requested the Commission to consider the things stated in his letter dated April 20, 2009. 20. Nothing written in the letter of the petitioner dated April 20, 2009 constitutes a reasonab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 24. I am, therefore, of the view that the Commission has committed no wrong, and that the impugned order is not vitiated by any jurisdictional error. Accordingly, I dismiss the WP. No costs. 25. Mr. Mukherjee assisting Mr. Ghosal has prayed for an order permitting the petitioner to pay the penalty from next month. Mr. Dutta has submitted that he has no objection ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
