AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sudhanshu Dhulia, JÂ Â Â
Petitioner before this Court was a public information officer in Education Department as a District Education Officer. In that capacity, certain
information was sought by the petitioner by one Bhuvan Chandra. In the school, there were two persons by the same name i.e. Bhuvan Chandra and
the information was given to another Bhuvan Chandra instead of the applicant i.e. respondent no. 3. Since, respondent no. 2 was not satisfied, he
moved an appeal before the appellate authority. The first appellate authority directed the petitioner to provide the information so sought by respondent
no. 3 within ten days. According to the petitioner, thereafter the information was supplied to respondent no. 3. Subsequently, respondent no. 3 filed a
second appeal before the State Information Commission. In the second appeal, it has come that there may be a mistake on the part of the petitioner,
as there were two persons in the same school by the same name i.e. Bhuvan Chandra but there is a negligence on the part of the petitioner. For this
reason, the State Information Officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 11,500/- (Rupees Eleven Thousand Five Hundred only) upon the petitioner, vide order
dated 09.06.2017. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.Â
Undoubtedly, there was a negligence on the part of the petitioner. But considering that principle negligence was on the part of the complainant, as
he had not given the GPF code, there was no willful negligence on the part of the petitioner. This aspect has not been considered by the State
Information Commission.Â
Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. Order dated 09.06.2017 passed by the State Information Commission, Dehradun, Uttarakhand is hereby
set aside.Â