9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (3) TMI 616X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, vide order impugned in this appeal, reduced the penalty amount to ₹ 2,500/- recoverable from the salary of the respondent in ten equal monthly installments of ₹ 250/- per month. The learned Single Judge held that the question of penalty is essentially between the Court and the respondent and did not really concern the appellant who has been provided with the information. Yet another reason given for so reducing the penalty was that the respondent had taken charge of the said post 14 days after the subject RTI application of the appellant had been filed. 3. Notice of this appeal was issued primarily on the ground, that the learned Single Judge, being of the view aforesaid, had decided the writ petition even without issuing notice to the appellant, though the appellant had been impleaded as respondent in the writ petition. Hearing in this appeal was commenced on 11th March, 2011 when the following order was passed:- Heard Ms. Girija Krishan Varma, learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent in person. In course of hearing of this appeal, Ms. Verma has raised the following contentions:- (a) The learned single Judge has disposed of the writ petition wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ture of the Court Master to Ms. Zubeda Begum. 4. The matter was thereafter adjourned from time to time. 5. We have however recently vide our judgment dated 9th January, 2012 in LPA 764/2011 titled Ankur Mutreja v. Delhi University held that; a). the Act does not provide for the CIC to, in the penalty proceedings, hear the information seeker, though there is no bar also there against if the CIC so desires; b). that the information seeker cannot as a matter of right claim audience in the penalty proceedings which are between the CIC and the erring information officer; c). there is no provision in the Act for payment of penalty or any part thereof imposed/recovered from the erring information officer to the information seeker; d). the penalty proceedings are akin to contempt proceedings, the settled position wherein is that after bringing the facts to the notice of the Court, it becomes a matter between the Court and the contemnor and the informant or the relator does not become a complainant or petitioner in contempt proceedings. 6. The aforesaid judgment was brought to the attention of the counsel for the appellant. The counsel for the appellant has however bes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act. 8. We have in Ankur Mutreja (supra) given detailed reasons for the conclusions aforesaid reached therein and which cover contentions 6(ii) to (viii) (x) aforesaid of the counsel for the appellant herein and we do not feel the need to reiterate the same. We may only add that the role of the CIC, under the Act, is not confined to that of an Adjudicator. The CIC under the RTI Act enjoys a dual position. The CIC, established under Section 12 of the Act, has been, a) under Section 18 vested with the duty to receive and enquire into complaints of non-performance and non-compliance of provisions of the Act and relating to access to records under the Act; b) empowered under Section 19(3) to hear second appeals against decision of Information Officer and the First Appellate Authority; c) empowered under Section 19(8) to, while deciding such appeals, to require any public authority to take such steps as may be necessary for compliance of provisions of the Act; and, d) and is to, under Section 25 of the Act prepare annual report on the implementation of the provisions of the Act. The CIC thus, besides the adjudicatory role also has a supervisory role in the implementation of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f right of being heard in opposition to writ petition challenging imposition of penalty does not arise. We therefore hold that no error was committed by the learned Single Judge in reducing the penalty without hearing the appellant. 14. That brings us to the question, whether the penalty prescribed in Section 20 of the Act is mandatory and the scope of interference with such penalty in exercise of powers of judicial review under Article 226 of Constitution of India. 15. We may at the outset notice that a Division Bench of this Court in judgment dated 6th January 2011 in LPA 782/2010 titled Central Information Commission v. Department of Posts, inspite of the argument raised that that Single Judge ought not to have reduced the penalty imposed by the CIC but finding sufficient explanation for the delay in supplying information, upheld the order of the Single Judge, reducing the penalty. Though Section 20(1) uses the word shall , before the words impose a penalty of Rs. two hundred and fifty rupees but in juxtaposition with the words without reasonable cause, malafidely or knowingly or obstructed. The second proviso thereto further uses the words, reasonably and diligentl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
