9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1533X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mposing heavy penalty. 5. The petitioner on 5-6-2012, after passing order, filed representation/application to respondent No. l and prayed for review of the order dated 27-12-2012. It is the case of the petitioner that, till date said representation has not been considered/decided by respondent No. 1. 6. This writ petition is filed being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 27-3-2012 passed by respondent No. 1. 7. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, in view of the provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 5 of the Right to Information Act, 2 005, Talathi and B.D.O. should suppose to give information and for lapse/inaction on the part of Talathi or B.D.O., the present petitioner who is working as Naib Tahsildar, could not have been held responsible. It is further submitted that, petitioner who is holding post of Naib Tahsildar has to seek information from Talathi and B.D.O. and the petitioner cannot supply the information in his official capacity as. Naib Tahsildar or office unless same information is received from Talathi or B.D.O. It is submitted that, respondent No. l has not considered the effect of not availing remedy of first appeal by respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te officer and further to supply information, submits that application was received on 30-10-2010 from respondent No. 2 and said was forwarded on very same date by the concerned Clerk of the office to the appropriate officers. Therefore, relying upon the grounds taken in the petition, the Counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petition deserves to be allowed. 8. Learned A.G.P. appearing for respondent No. 1 invited my attention to the reasons/observations of respondent No. l in the impugned judgment and order and submits that, respondent No. l has rightly imposed penalty of ₹ 25,000/-. Therefore, this Court may not interfere in the impugned judgment and order. 9. I have given careful consideration to the submissions of the Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned A.G.P, appearing for the State. With their able assistance perused the grounds taken in the petition, annexures thereto, impugned judgment and order by respondent No. l and also relevant provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005. At the outset, it would be apt to reproduce herein below Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 which reads thus : 6. Request for obtaining information. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ived, 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. In the facts of present case, 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
