Quashed

Sanjay Tribak Salve v. State Chief Information Commissioner, State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Jun 2013WP/3781/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order imposing a penalty on a petitioner under the RTI Act because he was notified at a wrong address and denied a proper opportunity of hearing. The court directed the Commissioner to provide a fresh hearing date.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed; petitioner directed to appear before Commissioner for hearing on 24 June 2013.

Sanjay Tribak Salve Vs State Chief… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

WP3781-13.sxw

¶2

JP CHAVAN

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3781 OF 2013

Sanjay Trimbak Salve

... Petitioner

Versus

State Chief Information Commissioner for the State of Maharashtra and others

¶9

... Respondents

¶10

Mr. Shrikant V. Gavand i/by Mr. A.H. Fatangare for the petitioner, Mr. P. P. Kakade, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2

¶11

CORAM : N. M. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 12 June 2013

¶12

P.C.

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned AGP appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has served the respondent no.3 as per order dated 13 April 2013 and he undertakes to file affidavit of service within a period of two days.

¶14

The petitioner, who is working as a Senior Clerk in the office of Sub Registrar Kalyan, has challenged the orders passed by the Chief Information Commissioner. By the impugned order the Respondent no.1 Commissioner has imposed penalty of Rs.25,000/- on the petitioner under Sections 19(8) (g) and 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. It is further directed that the amount of Rs.25,000/- will be recovered from the salary of the petitioner in five installments.

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioner, apart from advancing contentions on merits, contended that the petitioner was, at the relevant time, transferred from Tahsildar Office, Vasai to his present post at Kalyan however the notice of hearing was sent to the petitioner at the address of

¶16

1/2

¶17

WP3781-13.sxw

¶18

Tahsil Office, Vasai. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner received telephonic intimation to attend the hearing and the petitioner attended the hearing before the Commissioner, without knowing the exact nature of the proceedings and therefore, the could not represent his case properly. The learned counsel further submitted that in the impugned order itself, it is recorded that what was attributed against the petitioner was not that he withheld the information but it was given late. The learned counsel submitted that the order imposing penalty of Rs.25,000/- without giving an opportunity of hearing, is harsh.

¶19

It is true that the provisions of the Right to Information Act are stringent and the Commissioner is, in suitable cases, empowered to impose such fine as may be required, to ensure discipline amongst the officers. At the same time basic principles of natural justice cannot be lost sight of while passing such orders imposing fine. If the petitioner was not aware of the exact nature of the proceedings and the notice was sent to the wrong address, the petitioner deserves to be at least given a proper opportunity before the order is passed. It will be therefore in the interest of justice to give one more opportunity to the petitioner to represent his case before the Commissioner.

¶20

Accordingly the impugned orders passed by the Chief information Commissioner are quashed and set aside. The Petitioner will appear before the Commissioner on 24 June 2013 when suitable date can be fixed for hearing. The Respondent No.1 Commissioner will hear the petitioner and pass such appropriate order as may be required in the interest of justice.

¶21

The Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.

¶22

(N. M. JAMDAR, J.)

¶23

2/2

Sanjay Tribak Salve v. State Chief Information Commissioner, State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Tribak Salve v. State Chief Information Commissioner, State of Maharashtra and 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

Shri. Rahul Sampat Tungar Vs Shri. Bhaurao Arjun Tungar and Anr.

Ms. Suman Singla Vs Mahavir Centre Premises Co-Operative Society Ltd. and Ors.

Mrs. Suman Singla Vs Mahavir Centre Premises Co-Operative Society Ltd.

Rajendra P. Shetye and Ors. Vs Bhandari Co-Op. Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Sareeta Complex Building NO.7 Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs M/S. Mukul and Borhters and Ors.

Dayanand Sarjerao Shinde Vs Gram Panchayat, Riktoli and Ors.