Ranjeet Singh vs Chhattisgarh State Information Commission & Ors

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s) :-

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by respondent No.2, particularly the order imposing penalty upon the petitioner in his capacity as Public Information Officer, is not in accordance with law. She further submits that the information sought by the information seeker could not be furnished within the stipulated time on account of the COVID-19 pandemic and circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner. She further submits that though the Appellate Court has passed the order directing the petitioner to furnish the documents, but the same could not be duly communicated to the petitioner in time, resulting in the delay. Learned counsel submits that there was no mala fide intention on the part of the petitioner in not furnishing the documents within the stipulated period and, therefore, the penalty imposed upon the petitioner is unwarranted. Hence, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.12.2023.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, submits that the petitioner failed to furnish the information sought by the information seeker within the stipulated period. It is further submitted that, despite the direction issued by the first appellate authority, the petitioner failed to furnish the requisite information within time. Therefore, the penalty imposed upon the petitioner is justified, and the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the Appellate Authority has not recorded any specific finding as to whether the petitioner had acted mala fide or had deliberately and intentionally failed to furnish the information sought by the Information Seeker within the prescribed period.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the matter of Manohar S/o Manikrao Anchule Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, reported in (2012) 13 SCC 14, while considering the scope of penalty under the Right to Information Act, has emphasized the requirement of establishing a deliberate failure or neglect on the part of the Public Information Officer. The authority imposing penalty is required to consider whether the default was without reasonable cause and whether the conduct of the Public Information Officer warranted imposition of penalty.

In the present case, on perusal of the impugned order, this Court finds that respondent No.2/concerned authority has not recorded any specific finding that the petitioner deliberately or mala fide failed to furnish the information sought by the Information Seeker. The impugned order proceeds essentially on the basis of the delay in furnishing the information. There is no categorical finding demonstrating that such delay was intentional or that the petitioner had deliberately withheld the information.

In view of the aforesaid discussion and keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manohar (supra), this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 20.12.2023, insofar as it relates to the imposition of penalty upon the petitioner, is not sustainable in law.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

The impugned order dated 20.12.2023 passed by respondent No.2/concerned authority, insofar as it relates to the petitioner, is hereby quashed.

No order as to costs.