AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajiv Sharma, A.C.J.
Petitioner was elected as Pradhan of Gram Sabha / Gram Panchayat, Village Garhi Negi, Tehsil Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar, in the year
2008 and she assumed the charge on 29.09.2008. Respondent No. 3 submitted an application dated 27.02.2013 before the Public Information Officer /
Block Development Officer, Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar, seeking certain information regarding the affairs of Gram Sabha Garhi Negi. The
Block Development Officer, treating the petitioner to be the Public Information Officer, sent the application to her on 01.03.2013. Since one Sri Manoj
Kumar was working as Village Panchayat Development Officer, the application was sent to him. It is stated that Sri Manoj Kumar did not supply the
necessary and complete information within the prescribed period.
The fact of the matter is that penalty of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed upon the petitioner on 17.09.2013. Petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ
Petition (M/S) No. 2726 of 2013. The said writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge on 03.01.2014. Thereafter, a fresh order was passed on
18.03.2014 rejecting the case of the petitioner. The State Government had issued Notification dated 10.10.2005 appointing Pradhan of the Gram Sabha
/ Gram Panchayat as Public Information Officer. It is in these circumstances that the present writ petition has been filed challenging Notification dated
10.10.2005 along with the impugned order dated 18.03.2014.
Article 243(b) of the Constitution of India defines “Gram Sabhaâ€. Article 243(d) defines “Panchayat†meaning an institution (by whatever
name called) of self- government constituted under Article 243B for the rural areas. Article 243B provides that there shall be constituted in every
State, Panchayats at the village, intermediate and district levels. The composition of Panchayats is provided in Article 243C.
Panchayats have been constituted in the State of Uttarakhand under the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016 and, before that, under the Uttar
Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.
Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act†for brevity sake) defines “public authority†as
under:
“2(h) “public authority†means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted â€
(a) by or under the Constitution;
(b) by any other law made by Parliament;
(c) by any other law made by State Legislature;
(d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any â€
(i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed;
(ii) non-Government organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government.â€
Section 5 of the Act empowers every public authority, within one hundred days of the enactment of the Act, to designate as many officers as the
Central Public Information Officers or State Public Information Officers, as the case may be, in all administrative units or offices under it as may be
necessary.
Constitution of the Gram Panchayats is provided under Article 243B. According to the definition clause as noticed herein above, i.e. Article 243(d),
all the Panchayats are institutions of self-government.
The Gram Panchayat, of which the petitioner is the Pradhan, is also constituted under the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, as amended
from time to time and as applicable to the State of Uttarakhand. The constitution of the Panchayats is provided under that Act. Panchayat is an
institution of self-government duly established and constituted under an independent Act. It cannot be treated as a department of the State
Government. The State Government could not issue the Notification dated 10.10.2005, whereby the Pradhans of the Gram Panchayats have been
nominated as the Public Information Officers. Panchayat being a public authority as defined under Section 2(h) of the Act, alone, was competent to
appoint Public Information Officer under Section 5 of the Act.
Petitioner has also been imposed with a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Petitioner has submitted a reply to the show-cause notice. However, the same has not
been taken into consideration by the concerned authority. The purpose of seeking a reply is to enable the person to project his / her case before the
competent authority. Merely stating that the reply has been considered would be violative of the principles of natural justice. The competent authority,
while imposing the penalty upon the petitioner, has not taken into consideration whether the withholding of information was actuated with mala fides or
not.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The Notification dated 10.10.2005 is quashed and set-aside along with the impugned order dated
18.03.2014.