Petitioner challenged a penalty under RTI Act for furnishing incorrect survey numbers. Court held that minor errors do not amount to malafide; penalty order quashed.
Impugned order dated 04.07.2013 imposing penalty of Rs.25,000 set aside. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.No.23578 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 15.11.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
W.P.No.23578 of 2013 and
M.P.No.1 of 2013
Public Information Officer and Senior Grade Town Planning Officer, Thanjavur Municipality, Thanjavur Post and District - 613 001.
... Petitioner
Vs.
The Tamil Nadu State Information Commission, No.2, Thagaraja Salai, Near Aalayamman Koil, Teynampet, Chennai - 600 018.
Retired Employee of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board No.792, Kondirajapalayam, East Road, Thanjavur Post and District. ... Respondents
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for
Page 1/10
W.P.No.23578 of 2013
issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 1st respondent culminating in his records No.43159/D/2012 dated 04.07.2013 of the 1st Respondent / Tamil Nadu State Information Commission and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Raghupathi
For R1 : Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan For M/s.G.R.Associates R2 - No Appearance
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order of the 1st respondent dated 04.07.2013 imposing a penalty under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
W.P.No.23578 of 2013
permission granted to him by Municipality for putting up advertisement. The then Public Information Officer due to typing mistake has sent information on 05.04.2012 to the 2nd respondent that encroachments have been removed in T.S.No.798 instead of correct T.S.No.796. Hence, the 2nd respondent has filed an appeal dated 16.05.2012 to the Commissioner of Municipality about the mistake done in respect of Survey No.796. Unfortunately, the 1st Appellate Information Officer also omitted the correct Survey Number but informed that encroachment has been removed in T.S.No.795 & 798. Therefore, once again the 2nd respondent filed an appeal before the 1st respondent.
Page 3/10
W.P.No.23578 of 2013
respondent.
Page 4/10
W.P.No.23578 of 2013
infirmity.
Page 5/10
W.P.No.23578 of 2013
have been removed. However, challenging the same, the 2nd respondent filed an appeal before the 1st respondent. The main grievance of the 2nd respondent is that the entire encroachment has not been removed and only in few areas, it has been removed. Therefore, he sought action against the petitioner / Public Information Officer.
Page 6/10
W.P.No.23578 of 2013
even in the appeal filed before the 1st respondent appears to be not removing the entire encroachment. Whether such grievance will fall within the ambit of the Right to Information Act itself has not been gone into by the 1st respondent. On the other hand, the 1st respondent besides directing the petitioner to provide necessary information as sought for by the 2nd respondent and also issued a show cause notice as to why penalty under Section 20(1) of the Act should not be imposed.
Page 7/10
W.P.No.23578 of 2013
petitioner is, they omitted the Survey No.796. The survey number mentioned in the application is 796 whereas the survey number indicated by the petitioner is 798 viz., neighbouring survey number of the alleged encroachment area. Therefore, when the encroachment has been removed and reply has been submitted by the petitioner, the 1st respondent ought not to have formed a opinion that there was a delay in furnishing the information and therefore it warrants imposition of penalty.
1st respondent cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
Page 8/10
W.P.No.23578 of 2013
dated 04.07.2013 passed by the 1st respondent is set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
15.11.2022
raja Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Nonspeaking order To The Registrar, The Tamil Nadu State Information Commission, No.2, Thagaraja Salai, Near Aalayamman Koil, Teynampet, Chennai - 600 018.
Page 9/10
W.P.No.23578 of 2013
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
raja
W.P.No.23578 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013
15.11.2022
Page 10/10
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a penalty can be imposed on an Information Officer when the information was furnished albeit with minor clerical errors in survey numbers.
Whether the State Information Commission established that the petitioner acted without reasonable cause or with malafide intent before imposing the penalty.
Whether the grievance regarding the removal of encroachment falls within the ambit of the Right to Information Act in the absence of a specific request for action on encroachment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Not found in the textReferred
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Public Information Officer and Senior Grade Town Planning Officer, Thanjavur Municipality
1. The Registrar, The Tamil Nadu State Information Commission and 2. T.R.Narayanan
N.Sathish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
