Dismissed

Ramesh Kumar v. State Information Commissioner and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Feb 2011CWP/17356/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged an order dropping penal proceedings against a State Public Information Officer (SPIO) for delay in supplying information under the RTI Act. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that information had already been supplied and the dropping of proceedings was justified due to the SPIO's retirement and the petitioner's attempt to pursue unnecessary litigation after sa

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with costs.

Ramesh Kumar Vs State Information Commissioner… — RTI and Transparency | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

CWP No. 17356 of 2009

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No. 17356 of 2009 Date of decision : 16.02.2011

Ramesh

...Petitioner

versus

State Information Commission, Haryana and others ...Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

¶10

Present: Mr. Jasbir Mor, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Narender Singh, D.A.G., Haryana for respondent No. 1.

¶12

Mr. Ranjan Lohan, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 & 3.

¶13

¶14

M ehinder S ingh S ullar, J. (Oral)

¶15

The contour of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that Mr. Jasbir Mor, Advocate, moved an application dated 16.05.2007 (Annexure P1) to the State Public Information Officer (for brevity “the SPIO), o/o District Project Coordinator, Hisar, Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan, District Hisar, and sought the following information:-

¶16

a) Information regarding how much grant was paid to the project officer under the project of NPEGEL for govt. Girls Sr. Sec. School, Mirchpur, Distt. Hisar and also the name of the incharge of the project.

¶17

b) Information regarding what functions is to be completed under this project and within how much time these functions have to be completed and how much expenditure is occurred on the project.

¶18

c) Whether any room was to be constructed under this project in

¶19

CWP No. 17356 of 2009

¶20

-2-

¶21

the school and how many days it took to complete and who has constructed this room on contract and on what charges.

¶22

d) Whether this project is still in operation? What was the time period of operation? What was the time period of the project for operating. If the project is still going on what is the stage of the project and what is the tenure of the project?”

¶23

The information was supplied to him, by virtue of order dated 22.06.2007 (Annexure P2). Mr. Jasbir Mor, Advocate again sent the application dated 20.07.2007 (Annexure P3) admitting the fact of the supplying of the information but sought further clarifications and issued reminder dated 25.09.2007 (Annexure P4) to the SPIO, in this respect. Although, the earlier applications (Annexures P1, P3 & P4) were moved by Mr. Jasbir Mor, Advocate but petitioner (Ramesh) filed the appeal before the First Appellate Authority (for short “the FAA”), who passed an order dated 24.12.2007 (Annexure P7). The operative part of which in substance is as under:-

¶24

“ The counsel for the appellant informed that he was satisfied with the information already provided by the respondent, but requested that the person responsible for the delay in providing information be penalized as per the RTI Act provisions. The Public Information Officer was directed to explain each and every days delay in providing the information to the appellant. ”

¶25

The FAA passed another order dated 13.02.2008 (Annexure P10).

¶26

Not only that the petitioner again filed the appeal before the State Information Commissioner, Haryana (for brevity “the SIC), which passed the order dated 17.12.2008, which is as under:-

¶27

“The SPIO O/o District Project Co-ordinator Hisar is being issued to Show Cause Notice for penal proceedings under Section 20(1) why a penalty at the rate of 250/- for each day of delay in supplying the information subject to maximum of Rs.25000/- be not imposed upon him. He shall make his written submission by 15.1.2008 and be personally present during the hearing on 29.1.2009 at 12.30

¶28

CWP No. 17356 of 2009

¶29

-3-

¶30

Thereafter, the SIC dropped the proceeding, by means of impugned order dated 19.03.2009 (Annexure P13).

¶31

The petitioner still did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned order (Annexure P13), whereby the proceedings were dropped against the SPIO, invoking the provisions of Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, pleading that since the SPIO did not supply the requisite information within the stipulated period, so the penalty was liable to be imposed, but the SIC fell in error in dropping the penal proceedings against the SPIO. Hence, the impugned order was stated to be illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. On the basis of aforesaid allegation, the petitioner filed the present writ petition to quash the impugned order (Annexure P13), in the manner indicated herein above.

¶32

The respondents contested the claim of the petitioner. Respondent Nos. 2,3 & 4 filed their respective separate written statement, inter alia, pleading certain preliminary objections of maintainability of the writ petition and locus standi and objection of concealment of facts. The information sought was stated to have already been supplied to the petitioner. Respondent No. 4 has also attached the report and copies of cash-books (Annexures R1 & R2) showing the payments of construction of the room in question in this case and copies were supplied to the counsel for the petitioner as well. It will not be out of place to mention here that the contesting respondents have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the writ petition and prayed for its dismissal. That is how I am seized of the matter. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record, with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition.

¶33

As is evident from the record that the information sought by Mr. Jasbir Mor, Advocate, by way of application (Annexure P1), has already been

¶34

CWP No. 17356 of 2009

¶35

-4-

¶36

supplied through the medium of letter dated 22.06.2007(Annexure P2). This fact has been admitted by him in subsequent application dated 20.07.2007 (Annexure P3) and sought further clarification. This factum is also clear from the order dated 24.12.2007 of the FAA where it was incorporated that the counsel for the appellant informed that he is satisfied with the information already provided by the respondent but he sought action against the person who delayed the information. Insofar as the further explanation sought by Mr. Jasbir Mor, Advocate by application Annexures P3 & P4, the FAA has rightly negative his claim, by virtue of order dated 13.02.2008, which reads as under:-

¶37

“The applicant can not keep on changing the exact information sought every time. Any additional information sought by him after receiving the reply, which was complete, should be sought afresh. Therefore, there is no ground in the appeal filed by the appellant against Public Information Officer, District Hisar. The appeal is dismissed”.

¶38

Moreover, the SIC has rightly dropped the penal proceedings against the SPIO, by means of order dated 19.03.2009. The operative part of which is as under:-

¶39

“Mrs. Manju Gupta Dy. DEEO attended the hearing on behalf of respondents she informed that Mrs. Sneh Prabha Arya SPIO-cum-Distt. Project Co-coordinator Sarv Siksha Abhiyan has retired w.e.f. 28.2.09 and the resultant delay in furnishing information for various reasons as enumerated vide her above reply took place then.

¶40

Considering the reply and the fact that SPIO has since retired a lenient view is being taken in the matter and proceeding u/s 20(1) against Show Cause Notice No. 533/08 in case No. 1306/08 are being dropped.”

¶41

In this manner, if the totality of the facts and circumstances, as discussed herein above are put together then the conclusion is inescapable that the petitioner intended to take undue benefit of the provisions of the Act and is continuing the unnecessary litigation. Thus, he is not entitled to any relief, in

¶42

CWP No. 17356 of 2009

¶43

-5-

¶44

exercise of the extra ordinary writ-jurisdiction of this Court, in this relevant connection.

¶45

In the light of the aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed with costs as such.

¶46

( M ehinder S ingh S ullar ) Judge

¶47

February 16, 2011 G.Arora

Ramesh Kumar v. State Information Commissioner and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Kumar v. State Information Commissioner 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

Hari Sharma Vs State of Pb and Ors.

Janak Singh Vs State of Punjab

Baldev Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Gram Panchayat,Bhanguri Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Charan Dev Singh Vs the State of Punjab and Ors.

Rana Balbir Singh Vs Hry St. Agricultural Mktg Board etc.