Dismissed

Devidas Pundalik Kale v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC3 Dec 2018WP/13247/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected a writ petition challenging a penalty order and an order to disclose information imposed under the RTI Act. The Bench held that the petitioner, acting as Information Officer, wrongfully withheld approval details required for public fund disbursement, making the penalty correct.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was rejected; the penalty order of Rs. 1000 and order to supply information were upheld without interference.

Devidas Pundalik Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Bombay HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Madkar

¶2

1 W.P. No. 13247/2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

20. WRIT PETITION No. 13247 OF 2018

¶5

Devidas Pundalik Kale

¶6

...Petitioner

¶7

 Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others…Respondents

¶8

Mr. S.P. Brahme, Advocate for petitioner
Mr. S.W. Munde, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondents No.1 & 2

¶9

Coram : N.M. Jamdar, J. Date : 3 December 2018.

¶10

ORAL ORDER :

¶11

1.By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders
passed by the respondent No.2 the State Information Commissioner
dated 30th August 2018 and 31st October 2017. By the impugned
order, the petitioner is directed to supply the information to
respondent No.4/applicant and penalty of Rs. 1000/- is imposed
pursuant to the section 20 of the Right to Information Act.

¶12

2.The petitioner is working as Head Master in Eklavya
Prathamik Vidya Mandir, Jamner District Jalgaon. Respondent No.4

¶13

Madkar 2 W.P. No. 13247/2018

¶14

made an application on 13 July 2015 seeking information regarding
the approval granted to the petitioner for the post of Head Master by
the State Government. As the information was not given, respondent
No.4 filed an appeal. Respondent No.3 passed an order on 14
September 2015 directing the petitioner to supply the information as
sought by respondent No.4. The petitioner did not supply the
information. Thereafter another appeal was filed by respondent
No.4. The respondent No.2 passed an order on 30 October 2017
directing to give information. Thereafter, on 30 August 2018
respondent No.2 imposed penalty of Rs. 1000/-.

¶15

3.As regards the imposition of the penalty is concerned,
when the oder of penalty was passed on 30 August 2018, the earlier
order directing the petitioner to supply the information was not
challenged further by the petitioner. In response to the show cause
notice the petitioner sent a laconic one line reply that earlier
explanation of 31 January 2018 be taken into consideration. In this
explanation of 31 January 2018, the petitioner has taken various
grounds on law and has stated that just to honour the order, the
information is given to respondent No.4.

¶16

4.As regards the order directing the petitioner to supply the

¶17

Madkar 3 W.P. No. 13247/2018

¶18

information, reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for the
petitioner on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Girish
Ramchandra Deshpande Versus Central Information Commissioner and others1to
contend that the personal information relating to service could not be
supplied, unless there is over riding public interest.

¶19

5.The Right to Information Act has been enacted with an
avowed purpose of setting out a practical regime of right to
information for citizens to secure access to information to promote
transparency and accountability in the functioning. The Act
mandates the constitution of certain authorities, such as, the
Information Officer at the first instance and the Appellate Authority
and ultimate power is vested with the State Information Commission.
The Section 20 of the Act states that if the Information
Commissioner comes to the conclusion during the proceedings that
the conduct of the Information Officer showed that supply of certain
information was deliberately withheld, then penalty can be imposed as
per the provisions contained therein.

¶20

6.The petitioner is the Head Master of the school, who
himself was the Information Officer. Information regarding his
 1 2013(1) SCC 212

¶21

Madkar 4 W.P. No. 13247/2018

¶22

approval was sought. He took a stand that the information regarding
the approval being of a personal nature, cannot be given. This was
entirely incorrect. Approval for the post of Head Master is given
by the State grant as extended is on certain conditions. The school is
a aided school. The approval by the State authorities is necessary for
the State grant and information regarding approval cannot be
considered as only information of personal nature. The approval by
the State Government is a condition for releasing the grant out of
public funds. Instead of giving this information, being the Head
Master and the Information Officer, the petitioner took out various
objections. Even the tenor of the reply is not of performing the
duty as per the Act, but the petitioner has stated that he was doing so
merely to honour the order. The State Information Commission,
before imposing the penalty had given show cause notice to the
petitioner but the petitioner did not tender any apology having
withheld the information concerning himself.

¶23

7.Section 20 of the Act has been brought on the statute
book to empower the Commission to impose penalty to bring a sense
of discipline. The Act mandates that the information must be given
at the first instance, which was not done in the present case. The
petitioner was working in the dual capacity, as a head of the school as

¶24

Madkar 5 W.P. No. 13247/2018

¶25

well as Information Officer. He had wrongfully withheld information regarding his own approval by the Government Authority. Therefore, considering totality of the circumstances, the exercise of the power by the State Information Commissioner in imposing penalty of S 1000/- was correct. No interference is warranted in the impugned orders.

¶26

8.The writ petition is rejected.

¶27

 N.M. Jamdar, J.

Devidas Pundalik Kale v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devidas Pundalik Kale v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Baba Khengat Vs Khandu Motiram Chobhe and Others

Farhatullah Khan Hameed Khan Vs Gitabai Anant Limaye

Dagdu Alias Anna Keru Shinde Vs Pandurang Ganpat Shinde and Others

Tarabai Ananda Phatangre Vs Sahebrao Karbhari Phatangre

Navalkumar Sitaram Bakliwal Vs Nanded Education Society through Its Chairman and Others

Muktabai Ambadas Dongre Vs the School Administraton Committee Zilla Parishad School Bhilpuri and Others