Tikam Chand Verma vs Chhattisgarh State Information Commission & Ors

By filing the present petition, the petitioner assails the impugned order dated 12.07.2021 passed by respondent No.2/State Information Commissioner, whereby a penalty of Rs.25,000/- has been imposed upon the petitioner under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, ‘the Act’) for alleged failure to furnish the information sought by respondent No.3 within the stipulated period. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who was working as the Public Information Officer/Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Bharda Kala, had received the application seeking information on 14.07.2018 and not on 05.07.2018, as has been recorded by the respondent-authority. It is submitted that, immediately upon processing the application, the petitioner informed respondent No.3 that the information sought comprised approximately 600 pages and, therefore, the requisite additional fee of Rs.1,200/- was required to be deposited for supply of the photocopies.

Learned senior counsel further submits that respondent No.3, without depositing the requisite fee, preferred a first appeal before the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Saja, which was dismissed by order dated 24.10.2018 after affording opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties. It is further submitted that, in the proceedings before the State Information Commission, the petitioner had specifically placed on record his reply stating that the application had been received on 14.07.2018 and that respondent No.3 had not deposited the requisite fee despite being informed thereof. Learned counsel submits that the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Saja had also placed on record a similar position before the Commission.

It is further submitted that, pursuant to the subsequent direction of the State Information Commission, the information was duly furnished to respondent No.3. Learned senior counsel, therefore, submits that there was neither any deliberate withholding of information nor any mala fide intention on the part of the petitioner, who was discharging his duties as the Public Information Officer. The imposition of the maximum penalty of Rs.25,000/- under Section 20 of the Act, according to learned counsel, is therefore unsustainable in law, particularly when the petitioner had furnished an explanation disclosing the circumstances in which the information could not initially be supplied.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2 submits that the petitioner failed to furnish the information within the period prescribed under Section 7(1) of the Act and that the State Information Commission, upon consideration of the material available on record, found the petitioner liable for the delay. It is submitted that the petitioner had demanded an amount of Rs.1,200/- for furnishing the information, whereas, pursuant to the subsequent direction of the Commission, only 35 pages of information were ultimately furnished. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner, being the Public Information Officer, was under a statutory obligation to furnish the information within the prescribed period and, having failed to do so, was rightly proceeded against under Section 20 of the Act. It is, therefore, submitted that no interference with the impugned order is warranted.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed with the petition.

The material on record indicates that respondent No.3 had submitted the application seeking information on 14.07.2018. The petitioner, thereafter, vide communication dated 09.08.2018, informed respondent No.3 that the information sought involved approximately 600 pages and called upon him to deposit the requisite additional fee of Rs.1,200/- for obtaining copies thereof. It is also not in dispute that respondent No.3 did not deposit the said amount and instead preferred the first appeal before the competent authority. The first appellate authority, after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal vide order dated 24.10.2018, noticing the failure of respondent No.3 to deposit the requisite fee.

It is further borne out from the record that, during the proceedings before the State Information Commission, the petitioner specifically explained the circumstances in which the information had not been furnished earlier. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Saja, also placed a similar factual position before the Commission. The petitioner thereafter complied with the direction issued by the Commission and furnished the information to respondent No.3.

The question, therefore, which falls for consideration is whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioner could have been subjected to the maximum penalty under Section 20 of the Act.

Section 20 of the Act empowers the Central or State Information Commission to impose penalty where the Public Information Officer, without any reasonable cause, has refused to receive an application for information, has not furnished the information within the time specified under Section 7(1), has malafidely denied the request for information, has knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information, or has destroyed information or obstructed furnishing of information. The provision thus requires consideration of the explanation furnished by the Public Information Officer and the circumstances leading to the alleged delay or non-supply of information before the penal consequence is imposed.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Manohar S/o Manikrao Anchule Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, (2012) 13 SCC 14, has held that the power to impose penalty under Section 20 of the Act is not to be exercised mechanically and that the authority is required to consider whether there was reasonable cause for the failure on the part of the Public Information Officer. In the present case, the petitioner had furnished an explanation that the application was received on 14.07.2018, that the information sought consisted of a substantial number of documents and that respondent No.3 was informed to deposit the requisite additional fee for supply of copies. The said explanation was also supported by the communication dated 09.08.2018. There is further material on record to indicate that the first appellate authority had also noticed the non-deposit of the requisite fee by respondent No.3.

More importantly, the impugned order does not disclose any categorical finding, supported by cogent reasons, that the petitioner had deliberately or malafidely withheld the information or that his explanation regarding the demand for requisite fee was wholly untenable. The fact that the petitioner subsequently furnished the information pursuant to the direction of the Commission also assumes significance while examining the justification for imposing the maximum penalty.

The power under Section 20 of the Act is penal in nature and, therefore, the circumstances constituting the statutory conditions for its exercise are required to be examined with due care. Merely because there has been a delay or an initial failure to furnish information, the maximum penalty cannot be imposed mechanically without examining whether the failure was without reasonable cause.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court finds that the petitioner had placed before the State Information Commission a specific explanation regarding the circumstances in which the information was not furnished within the prescribed period. The impugned order, however, does not satisfactorily deal with the said explanation nor does it record adequate reasons for concluding that the petitioner was liable to suffer the maximum penalty under Section 20 of the Act.

In view of the foregoing discussion and having regard to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manohar (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the imposition of penalty of Rs.25,000/- upon the petitioner cannot be sustained.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 12.07.2021 passed by respondent No.2, insofar as it imposes a penalty of Rs.25,000/- upon the petitioner, is hereby set aside. Any consequential direction for recovery of the said penalty amount shall also stand quashed.

At this stage, this Court is of the view that the information in question has already been supplied by the petitioner pursuant to the direction issued by the State Information Commission. If respondent No.3 has not received the said information or if the same has otherwise not reached him, it would be open for him to approach the concerned authorities for obtaining the information so supplied. In such circumstances, no further direction in that regard is called for in the present petition.

There shall be no order as to costs.