WPC/2232/2024 of JOGENDRA YADAV Vs CHHATTISGARH STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, on 20 December 2024

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly bepleased to set-aside the order dated 21.09.2023(Annexure P/1) passed by the State InformationCommission.

10.2 Any other relief which this Hon’ble CourtSHUBHAMdeems fit and proper may also be passed in favourDEYof the petitioner together with cost of the petition.”Digitally signedby SHUBHAMDEY

2. By this writ petition, petitioner is challenging the legality and sustainabilityof the impugned order dated 21.09.2023 (Annexure P/1) passed by theChhattisgarh State Information Commission, Raipur imposing penalty ofRs. 25,000/- upon the petitioner under the provisions of Section 20 (1) ofthe Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter for brevity referred to asthe Act, 2005). of the impugned order dated 21.09.2023 (Annexure P/1) passed by theChhattisgarh State Information Commission, Raipur imposing penalty ofRs. 25,000/- upon the petitioner under the provisions of Section 20 (1) ofthe Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter for brevity referred to asthe Act, 2005).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was holdingthe post of Panchayat Secretary, Village Panchayat Garjiyabathan, Block– Patthalgaon, District – Jashpur. Respondent No. 3 submitted anapplication under the Act, 2005 for providing the information of the cashledger book for the period from 01.03.2020 till 08.11.2021.When theinformation could not be supplied, he submitted the first appeal and theFirst Appellate Authority vide its order dated 10.01.2022 directed toprovide the information. According to the facts as reflecting from theimpugned order, the information could not be supplied and therefore, thecomplaint was filed by the Respondent No. 3. After filing of the complaint,the information was supplied as asked for by the Respondent No. 3 andhe also acknowledged the receipt of information on 18.01.2023 (AnnexureP/4). In the acknowledgment, he has also mentioned that he do not wantany proceedings or action on the complaint filed by him before the StateInformation Commission. the post of Panchayat Secretary, Village Panchayat Garjiyabathan, Block– Patthalgaon, District – Jashpur. Respondent No. 3 submitted anapplication under the Act, 2005 for providing the information of the cashledger book for the period from 01.03.2020 till 08.11.2021.When theinformation could not be supplied, he submitted the first appeal and theFirst Appellate Authority vide its order dated 10.01.2022 directed toprovide the information. According to the facts as reflecting from theimpugned order, the information could not be supplied and therefore, thecomplaint was filed by the Respondent No. 3. After filing of the complaint,the information was supplied as asked for by the Respondent No. 3 andhe also acknowledged the receipt of information on 18.01.2023 (AnnexureP/4). In the acknowledgment, he has also mentioned that he do not wantany proceedings or action on the complaint filed by him before the StateInformation Commission.

4. It is contention of the counsel for the petitioner that as the applicantseeking information has given an acknowledgment that he do not wantany action against the Public Information Officer, petitioner was of theview that the complaint would be withdrawn or dismissed by the StateInformation Commission, however, the impugned order was passedimposing the penalty. Even after providing the information sought for. It iscontention of counsel for the petitioner that before imposing penalty, noshow-cause notice as provided under Section 20 (1) of the Act, 2005 wasseeking information has given an acknowledgment that he do not wantany action against the Public Information Officer, petitioner was of theview that the complaint would be withdrawn or dismissed by the StateInformation Commission, however, the impugned order was passedimposing the penalty. Even after providing the information sought for. It iscontention of counsel for the petitioner that before imposing penalty, noshow-cause notice as provided under Section 20 (1) of the Act, 2005 was issued to the petitioner and therefore, also, the order imposing penalty is bad in law.

Issues

5. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 submits that the reply is filedpleading therein that the Respondent No. 3 is satisfied with theinformation supplied by the petitioner and his grievance is settled.Respondent No. 3 gave acknowledgment in this regard on 18.01.2023.The fact of providing information as sought for giving acknowledgment inthis regard, regarding his satisfaction to the information and further, thatthe Respondent No. 3 do not want any action to the complaint could notbe placed before the State Information Commission, which led to passingof the order. pleading therein that the Respondent No. 3 is satisfied with theinformation supplied by the petitioner and his grievance is settled.Respondent No. 3 gave acknowledgment in this regard on 18.01.2023.The fact of providing information as sought for giving acknowledgment inthis regard, regarding his satisfaction to the information and further, thatthe Respondent No. 3 do not want any action to the complaint could notbe placed before the State Information Commission, which led to passingof the order.

6. Learned counsel for Respondents No. 1 & 2 submits that the RespondentNo. 1 has filed reply pleading therein that the application seekinginformation under the Right to Information was refused to be accepted bythe Public Information Officer-cum-Secretary, Village PanchayatGarjiyabathan, Janpad Panchayat Patthalgaon against which, appeal waspreferred. The First Appellate Authority directed to provide the requisiteinformation free of cost but, even then, information was not supplied andthereafter, a complaint was filed by the Respondent No. 3. He contendedthat the complaint was registered, show-cause notice was issued uponwhich, petitioner appeared before the commission on 24.01.2023. Afterconsidering the records and submissions made, the Commission orderedfor issuance of show-cause notice under Section 20 (1) & 20 (2) of theAct, 2005. The petitioner has not submitted any reply to the show-causenotice and thereafter, the order impugned was passed which is inaccordance with law following the due procedure as provided under theAct, 2005. Hence, the impugned order dated dated 21.09.2023 (AnnexureP/1) does not call for any interference.No. 1 has filed reply pleading therein that the application seekinginformation under the Right to Information was refused to be accepted bythe Public Information Officer-cum-Secretary, Village PanchayatGarjiyabathan, Janpad Panchayat Patthalgaon against which, appeal waspreferred. The First Appellate Authority directed to provide the requisiteinformation free of cost but, even then, information was not supplied andthereafter, a complaint was filed by the Respondent No. 3. He contendedthat the complaint was registered, show-cause notice was issued uponwhich, petitioner appeared before the commission on 24.01.2023. Afterconsidering the records and submissions made, the Commission orderedfor issuance of show-cause notice under Section 20 (1) & 20 (2) of theAct, 2005. The petitioner has not submitted any reply to the show-causenotice and thereafter, the order impugned was passed which is inaccordance with law following the due procedure as provided under theAct, 2005. Hence, the impugned order dated dated 21.09.2023 (AnnexureP/1) does not call for any interference.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perusedthe documents placed before this Court for perusal. the documents placed before this Court for perusal.

8. Perusal of the documents enclosed would show that the Respondent No.3 filed an application seeking information under the Act, 2005. It is alsoappearing that the information was not supplied within the time asprescribed under the Act, 2005 which led to filing of the complaint by theRespondent No. 3 to the Appellate Authority and thereafter, when evenafter passing of the order by the Appellate Authority of providinginformation, it was not supplied to the Respondent No. 3, he filedcomplaint. Perusal of the document Annexure P/4 would show that duringpendency of the complaint, information was supplied to the RespondentNo. 3/applicant therein to his satisfaction which was also acknowledgedby him. In the acknowledgment, it is also mentioned that he does not wantto pursue the complaint.3 filed an application seeking information under the Act, 2005. It is alsoappearing that the information was not supplied within the time asprescribed under the Act, 2005 which led to filing of the complaint by theRespondent No. 3 to the Appellate Authority and thereafter, when evenafter passing of the order by the Appellate Authority of providinginformation, it was not supplied to the Respondent No. 3, he filedcomplaint. Perusal of the document Annexure P/4 would show that duringpendency of the complaint, information was supplied to the RespondentNo. 3/applicant therein to his satisfaction which was also acknowledgedby him. In the acknowledgment, it is also mentioned that he does not wantto pursue the complaint.

9. From the acknowledgment (Annexure P/4), it is appearing that theRespondent No. 3 have clearly stated that he do not want to pursue thecomplaint and made a prayer to close the file. Respondent No. 3 have clearly stated that he do not want to pursue thecomplaint and made a prayer to close the file.

10. Be that as it may, under the provisions of the Act, 2005 it is an obligationon the part of the Public Information Officer to provide an information assought for by the applicant under the provisions of the Act, 2005, exceptthe information which falls within the provision under Section 8 of the Act,2005. It is also appearing that the information could not be supplied tillfiling of the complaint. on the part of the Public Information Officer to provide an information assought for by the applicant under the provisions of the Act, 2005, exceptthe information which falls within the provision under Section 8 of the Act,2005. It is also appearing that the information could not be supplied tillfiling of the complaint.

11. Section 20 of the Act, 2005 provides for the penalties to be imposed uponthe Public Information Officer by the State Information Commission. Whiledeciding the complaint or appeal, if in the opinion of the InformationCommission or the Appellate Authority, the Public Information Officerwithout any reasonable cause refuses to receive an application forthe Public Information Officer by the State Information Commission. Whiledeciding the complaint or appeal, if in the opinion of the InformationCommission or the Appellate Authority, the Public Information Officerwithout any reasonable cause refuses to receive an application for

information or has not furnished the information within the time specified,penalty can be imposed, however, under the provisions of the Act, 2005, itis mandatory upon the authority imposing penalty to give reasonableopportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed upon him. Copyof the order-sheet dated 24.01.2023 filed as Annexure R-01/2 would showthat the Commission has ordered for issuance of notice under Section 20(1) and 20 (2) of the Act, 2005 to the petitioner/Public Information Officer.In the right hand corner of the order-sheet, there is mentioned “issuedand date is 28.08.2023”. Pursuant to order dated 24.01.2023, as per thenoting made in the order-sheet, it is appearing that the notice was issuedafter about 07 months i.e. only on 28.08.2023, the order impugned ispassed thereafter on 21.09.2023.

12. The order of penalty for failure to provide information is akin to criminalaction to be taken against a person under the law and therefore, it wasthe duty cast upon the Commission to record that the notice issued forimposing penalty and taking disciplinary action is served upon the personto whom it is issued i.e. the petitioner and even after service of notice, hefailed to appear and submit its reply. In the impugned order dated21.09.2023, no such finding is recorded by the Respondent No.1/Commission. In absence of such specific finding recorded by theCommission before passing an order of imposing penalty under Section20 (1) of Act, 2005 that the show-cause notice ordered to be issued by theCommission was issued and served upon the Public Information Officer,more so, when in the order-sheet pursuant to the order dated 24.01.2023,the date of issuance is as reflecting only on 28.08.2023 i.e. more than 07months from the date of order. Issuance and service of notice cannot bepresumed. Respondent No. 1 has not filed any document in support of itscontention to show that notice if any, issued by what mode and whether itis served upon prior to date of hearing. It is mandatory that beforeaction to be taken against a person under the law and therefore, it wasthe duty cast upon the Commission to record that the notice issued forimposing penalty and taking disciplinary action is served upon the personto whom it is issued i.e. the petitioner and even after service of notice, hefailed to appear and submit its reply. In the impugned order dated21.09.2023, no such finding is recorded by the Respondent No.1/Commission. In absence of such specific finding recorded by theCommission before passing an order of imposing penalty under Section20 (1) of Act, 2005 that the show-cause notice ordered to be issued by theCommission was issued and served upon the Public Information Officer,more so, when in the order-sheet pursuant to the order dated 24.01.2023,the date of issuance is as reflecting only on 28.08.2023 i.e. more than 07months from the date of order. Issuance and service of notice cannot bepresumed. Respondent No. 1 has not filed any document in support of itscontention to show that notice if any, issued by what mode and whether itis served upon prior to date of hearing. It is mandatory that before Dey imposing penalty or passing the order of direction for initiatingdepartmental proceedings against the Public Information Officer, he isrequired to be given an opportunity of hearing.

Conclusion

13. For the foregoing discussion, the order impugned dated 21.09.2023

(Annexure P/1) imposing penalty upon the petitioner is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, it is set-aside.

14. The writ petition stands allowed.

-

Sd/-

Sd/-

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge