Allowed

Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Apr 2011CWP/7348/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Punjab High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a penalty imposed by the State Information Commission. The bench held that penalizing the Executive Officer, who acted as the Appellate Authority, was grossly harsh as the obligation to supply information lay with the Public Information Officer. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed and the impugned order dated 01.10.2007 imposing a penalty of Rs.250/- per day was quashed.

Sukhdev Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr. — RTI and Transparency | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

1 –

¶2

CWP No.7348 of 2008.doc

¶3

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

¶5

CWP No.7348 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 06.04.2011

Sukhdev Singh

. . . . Petitioner

VS.

State of Punjab & Ors. . . . . Respondents

¶11

¶12

CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT

¶13

¶14

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶15

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶16

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶17

¶18

Present: Mr. RS Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner

¶19

Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG Punjab

¶20

¶21

SURYA KANT J. (ORAL)

¶22

(1). The petitioner was posted as Executive Officer in the Municipal Council, Rampura Phul, District Bathinda at the relevant time when information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short, ‘the RTI Act’) pertaining to the certified copy of a Gazette Notification of Punjab Government was sought by the applicant under the RTI Act. The Assistant Public Information Officer of the Municipality vide his communication dated 19.06.2007 informed the applicant that “the demanded notification is not available in this office but for obtaining any no

¶23

2 –

¶24

CWP No.7348 of 2008.doc

¶25

objection certificate regarding outside the Municipal limits you are required to pay a fee of Rs.500 on account of the issuance of such certificate”.

¶26

(2). It may be mentioned here that as per the guidelines issued by the State Government on 11.10.2005 (Annexure P1), the Executive Officer is to act as an Appellate Authority under the RTI Act and not as a Public Information Officer. (3). The complainant was dis-satisfied with the above-stated reply dated 19.06.2007 received by him and approached the State Information Commission, Punjab. It appears that vide order dated 13.07.2007, the Commission directed the Executive Officer of the Municipal Council (the petitioner) to remain present. As the petitioner failed to appear before the Commission without giving any satisfactory explanation, that he has been handed down with the impugned order dated 01.10.2007 (Annexure P11) imposing a penalty of Rs.250/- per day w.e.f. 13.07.2007 subject to a maximum of Rs.25,000/-.

¶27

(4).

¶28

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned order, I am of the considered view that the action taken by the State Information Commission is grossly harsh and cannot be upheld. I say so for the reason that the petitioner was not the Public Information Officer obligated under the Act to supply the

¶29

3 –

¶30

CWP No.7348 of 2008.doc

¶31

information to the complainant. If there was any deficiency in the information, the Commission ought to have summoned the Public Information Officer and not the petitioner who was to perform the Appellate duties. In fact, the complainant ought to have been relegated to the Appellate Authority before rushing to the State Commission. It also appears that the fine has been imposed on the petitioner as he caused annoyance by not appearing before the Commission.

¶32

(5). For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned dated 01.10.2007 (Annexure P11) is quashed.

¶33

(6). Dasti .

¶34

06.04.2011 (S u r y a K a n t) vishal shonkar Judge

Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nathu Ram Vs M/S Ram Gopal Harbans Lal

Charanjit Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

J.L. Rambani and Others Vs State of Punjab etc.

Harpal Singh Vs F.C. etc.

Harish Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

B.S. Baidwan and Ors. Vs Pb. State Federation of Coop. Sugar Mills and Ors.