Dismissed

Prem Lata Sinha v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Allahabad HC11 Dec 2017WRIC/15739/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition challenging a fine imposed by the State Information Commissioner under the RTI Act. The petitioner claimed no hearing was held, but the court found the Commissioner had issued notice and fixed dates, failing to manifestly error the order.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the fine imposed under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act was dismissed.

Prem Lata Sinha Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors. — RTI and Transparency | Allahabad HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 34

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15739 of 2015 Petitioner :- Prem Lata Sinha Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Dr. G.S.D. Mishra,Umesh Panday Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Agrawal

¶4

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Dr. G.S.D. Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for State respondents.

¶6

This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution has come up against order dated 19.09.2013 passed by State Information Commissioner imposing a fine of Rs.25,000/- on petitioner who was working as Information Officer, Bal Vikas Pariyozana Adhikari, Bhadohi for the reasons that information sought by complainant was not made available and only incomplete and misleading information were supplied. Only ground on which impugned order challenged is that no opportunity of hearing was given to petitioner at all. However, order shows that notice was served upon petitioner and 30.08.2012 was fixed. When complainant informed that incomplete information has been made available thereupon defendant before State Information Commissioner sought further time to make information available but only incomplete information was supplied. These are the findings recorded in impugned order as is evident from the following:

¶7

" fnukWad 26-07-2012 dks oknh mifLFkr gq, FksA izfroknh dh vkSj ls dksbZ Hkh mifLFkr ugha gSA izfroknh dks vk;ksx ds vkns'k fnukWad 19-07-2012 dh izfr vuqikyukFkZ Hksth x;h Fkh vkSj vxyh lquokbZ frfFk fnukWad 30-08-2012 fu;r dh x;hA fnukWad 30-08-2012 dks oknh }kjk crk;k x;k Fkk fd izfroknh }kjk viw.kZ lwpuk;sa izkIr djk;h x;h gSA izfroknh dh vksj ls lwpuk;as miyC/k djk;s tkus ds fy, le; pkgk x;k FkkA izfroknh dks le; nsrs gq, funsZf'kr fd;k x;k Fkk fd oknh dks lwpuk;sa miyC/k djkdj vxyh lquokbZ frfFk dks lwpukvksa ds fooj.k ds lkFk mifLFkr gksaxs vkSj

¶8

¶9

vxyh lquokbZ frfFk fnukWad 06-09-2012 fu;r dh x;h vkSj fn0 06-092012 dks iqu% izfroknh }kjk lwpuk;sa miyC/k djk;s tkus ds fy, le; dh ekax dh x;h Fkh vkSj vxyh lquokbZ frfFk 08-01-2012 fu;r dh x;hA fnukad 08-11-2012 dks izfroknh dks funsZf'kr fd;k x;k Fkk fd oknh dks fcUnq la[;k lh ds lEcU/k esa lwpuk;sa miyC/k djk;s vkSj vxyh lquokbZ frfFk fnukad 21-02-2013 fu;r dh x;hA fnukWad 21-02-2013 dks izfroknh }kjk crk;k x;k Fkk fd lwpuk;sa izkIr djk;h x;h gSA oknh }kjk viw.kZ lwpuk;sa izkIr djk;h x;h gSA vk;ksx }kjk oknh dks funsZf'kr fd;k x;k Fkk viuh fyf[kr vkifRr izfroknh dks izkIr djk;sA izfroknh dks funsZf'kr fd;k x;k Fkk fd oknh dh vkifRr izfroknh ds dk;kZy; esa izkIr gksus ij vkifRr dk fuLrkj.k ewy vkosnu i= ds dze esa 10 fnu esa dj vxyh lquokbZ frfFk dks ftyk dk;dze vf/kdkjh lar jfonkl uxj Hknksgh Lo;a mifLFkr gksdj izdj.k esa fLFkfr dks सपष djsa vkSj vxyh lquokbZ frfFk 07-08-2013 ,oa 19-09-2013 fu;r dh x;hA fQj Hkh izfroknh }kjk oknh ds vkosnu i= ds dze esa Hkzked lwpuk;sa miyC/k djk;h x;hA mDr fLFkfr esa izfroknh tulwpuk vf/kdkjh cky fodkl ifj;kstuk vf/kdkjh Mhg lar jfonkluxj Hknksgh }kjk oknh dks Hkzked lwpuk;sa miyC/k djk;s tkus dk दोषी ekurs gq, lwpuk dk vf/kdkj vf/kfu;e 2005 dh /kkjk 20 1 ds rgr 25000 :i;s dk vkfFkZd n.M vf/kjksfir fd;k tkrk gSA inLFk tulwpuk vf/kdkjh cky fodkl ifj;kstuk vf/kdkjh@cky fodkl ifj;kstuk vf/kdkjh Mhg lar jfonkl uxj Hknksgh osru ls 03 leku fd'rksa esa fu;ekuqlkj tek djk;k tkuk lqfuf'pr fd;k tk;s rFkk dr`r dk;Zokgh ls vk;ksx dks Hkh lle; voxr djk;saA "

¶10

(English translation by the Court)

¶11

“The plaintiff appeared on 26.07.2012. None present on behalf of the defendant. The copy of commission's order dated 19.07.2012 was sent to the defendant for compliance and 30.08.2012 was fixed as next date of hearing. On 30.08.2012, it was stated by the plaintiff that incomplete information had been made available by the defendant. On behalf of the defendant, time had been sought for providing information. While granting time, the defendant was directed to appear on the next date of hearing with the particulars of the information by providing the same to the plaintiff and next date of hearing was fixed to be 06.09.2012. On 06.09.2012, time for providing information was again sought by the defendant and 08.01.2012 was fixed as next date of hearing. On 08.11.2012, the defendant was directed to provide information to the plaintiff in connection with Point No. C and 21.02.2013 was fixed as the next date of hearing. On 21.02.2013, it was stated by the defendant that the information had been provided. Incomplete information has been provided by the plaintiff. The plaintiff was directed by the Commission to made available his written objection to the defendant. The defendant was directed that on receipt of the objection in the office of the defendant, the same be decided within 10 days in continuation with the original

¶12

¶13

application and the District Programme Officer, Sant Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi) would explain about the situation by appearing in person on the next date of hearing and 07.08.2013 and 19.09.2013 were fixed as next dates. Even after this, misleading information was provided by the defendant in continuation with the application of the plaintiff. In the said situation, the defendant Public Information Officer i.e. Child Development Project Officer, Deeh, Sant Ravidas Nagar, Bhadohi is imposed with a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- u/s 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 holding him guilty for providing misleading information to the plaintiff. The penalty be ensured to be deposited as per rules into 3 equated monthly instalments from the salary of the incumbent public information officer i.e. Child Development Project Officer/Child Development Project Office, Deeh, Sant Ravidas Nagar, Bhadohi, and the Commission be also informed of the action taken within time.”

¶14

In entire writ petition, this finding of fact recorded by State Information Officer has not been assailed and there is noting to show that the facts recorded in impugned order are incorrect.

¶15

Hence we do not find any manifest error in the order dated 19.09.2013 warranting interference in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶16

This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶17

Order Date :- 11.12.2017 S. Thakur

Prem Lata Sinha v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Lata Sinha v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suman Devi Vs Additional Commissioner Administration

Radhey Shyam Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Others

Liyakat Ali Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Aruna Jain Vs State of U.P. and Others

Hori Lal @ Anurudh Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Arshad and 11 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others