Punjab & Haryana HC order regarding imposition of Penalty

[karira]

Applicant applied for information to the PIO on 16.10.2006
On not getting a reply from the PIO , applicant filed Second Appeal before the SIC on 1.12.2006
The PIO gave partial information on 1.2.2007 and 14.2.2007
The SIC asked the appellant to file a First Appeal before approaching the Commisison under Sec 19 (3)
Applicant filed First Appeal on 2.1.2007
But the PA designated a FAA only on 2.3.2007
In the meantime, appellant waited for the mandatory 30+15 days and again approached the SIC on 20.2.2007
Although part information was given and inspection also allowed, SIC issued a show cause notice under Section 20 (1) and thereafter imposed a penalty of Rs. 19,250.00

PIO and the PA filed a WP in the High Court contending that:

a) The SIC cannot impose penalty without recording findings that the PIO has persistently refused and delayed information
b) SIC cannot impose penalty without first ensuring that the PIO is properly trained
c) No second appeal was maintainable without first filing and getting heard a first appeal

High Court overruled all objections stating:

a) Bare reading of Sec 20 (1) implies that penalty can be imposed by SIC even for simple delay because the SIC has enough powers under the RTI act to do so and decide whether the delay was intentional or not.
In any case the PIo was getting confused between Sec 20 (1) and Sec 20 (2)
b) Sec 26 (for training) and Sec 20 (1) are not interlinked at all. In fact even 3 years after the RTI Act came into force, the PA has ignored it has provisions by not appointing a FAA and only doing so after the appellant filed a First Appeal
c) The last contention did not hold ground because as per Sec 19 (3), the applicant had waited for the mandatory period and then filed his Second Appeal .

The full order is uploaded to www.rtiindia.info in the Judgement section (Ramesh Sharma v/s Haryana SIC)

[jps50]

The cost of filing and pleading writ petition should be recovered from SPIO & FAA . Public money cannot be wasted for harassing the public, otherwise every decision of CIC/SIC will be challenged in High or Supreme Court by PAs at public cost. The information seeker should file another RTI appln for knowing the reasons and rule under which expenses are borne by the govt. He should seek justification and file noting which permitted filing of writ. The penalities were against CPIO in his personal capacity for breaching an act of parliament and the concerned officer should move personally,if he is aggrieved.

[rajub]

A very good news for the info seekers who are invariably at the receiving end.

[advocate rajesh]

such type of strict action are need on regular bases and the same will enhance the confidence of masses towardsthe RTI . RTI implimenting authorities must act in fair manner as in this case ,this is the begning one day we will see changed societ a poor and helpless person will be having an upper hand in the society ans he will have a say. Thanks for the judegment

[sandeepbaheti]

All contentions of PIO and FAA are ridiculous. Good decision by SIC and HC.

[Dr_Phalswal]

Originally Posted by advocate rajesh

such type of strict action are need on regular bases and the same will enhance the confidence of masses towardsthe RTI .

Yes Rajesh, this is laudable but here HC intervened. As you are from Haryana, you might be knowing our SIC G Madhvan's continued reluctance towards punishing PIO 's. He is too lenient. As you are advocate too so might be knowing Advocate Pardeep Rapria's displeasure on this issue of leniency in NDTV's show where he confronted Madhavan on this issue.

[abhi987]

Dear Adv. Rajesh,

If you are from Haryana, why do not you file a case/ public interest litigation (PIL) against SIC for not implementing the mandatory provisions of RTI Act for fining the PIO 's in every case and adopting a lenient approach towards them.