PENALTY UNDER RTI
--COURT CASES
WP
(C) No.3845/2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Pronounced
on: 28.04.2009
MUJIBUR
REHMAN versus Central Information Commission
12. The Court while
considering a complaint about the Tribunal infracting its bounds has to be
alive to the fact that primary discretion in such cases is with the statutory
Tribunal. At the same time, once it is established that the Tribunal, for no
apparent reason, either exceeded its jurisdiction or failed to exercise
jurisdiction lawfully vested in it, the High Court would be justified in
interfering with its orders.
14. As far as the sixth
respondent's contention regarding possible prejudice in his departmental
enquiry is concerned, this Court feels that an order under Section 20 would not
in any manner come in the way of his defenses, lawfully available to him in
such proceedings. The sixth respondent is not denying the findings recorded in
the order dated 29.5.2006; in fact he has not even challenged it. The court
cannot be unmindful of the circumstances under which the Act was framed, and
brought into force. It seeks to foster an "openness culture" among state
agencies, and a wider section of "public authorities" whose actions
have a significant or lasting impact on the people and their lives. Information
seekers are to be furnished what they ask for, unless the Act prohibits
disclosure; they are not to be driven away through sheer inaction or
filibustering tactics of the public authorities or their officers. It is
to ensure these ends that time limits have been prescribed, in absolute terms,
as well as penalty provisions. These are meant to ensure a culture of
information disclosure so necessary for a robust and functioning democracy.
15. In the above circumstances, Court is of the opinion that the impugned order to the extent it discharges the sixth respondent of the notice under Section 19 (8) and does not impose the penalty sought for has to be declared illegal. In this case, the penalty amount (on account of the delay between 28.12.2005 and the first week of May, 2006 when the information was given) would work out to Rs.25,000/-. The third respondent is hereby directed to deduct the same from the sixth respondent's salary in five equal installments and deposit the amount, with the Commission.
16. In the circumstances of the case, the third respondent shall bear the cost of the proceedings quantified at Rs.50,000/- be paid to the petitioner within six weeks from today.[emphasis added]_______________________________________________________
15. In the above circumstances, Court is of the opinion that the impugned order to the extent it discharges the sixth respondent of the notice under Section 19 (8) and does not impose the penalty sought for has to be declared illegal. In this case, the penalty amount (on account of the delay between 28.12.2005 and the first week of May, 2006 when the information was given) would work out to Rs.25,000/-. The third respondent is hereby directed to deduct the same from the sixth respondent's salary in five equal installments and deposit the amount, with the Commission.
16. In the circumstances of the case, the third respondent shall bear the cost of the proceedings quantified at Rs.50,000/- be paid to the petitioner within six weeks from today.[emphasis added]_______________________________________________________
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 16.04.2009
W.P. (C) 6661/2008
U.O.I ..... Petitioner
versus
CENTRAL INFORMATION
COMMISSION &ORS
[Compensation increased
from Rs.5000/- to Rs.55000/- by HC]
_____________________________________________________________
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition
No.14161 of 2009
Date of Decision:
10.09.2009
Versus State Information
Commission, Punjab and others
As per provisions of the Act, Public Information Officer is supposed to
supply correct information that too, in a time bound manner. Once a finding has
come that he has not acted in the manner prescribed under the Act, imposition
of penalty is perfectly justified.
________________________________________________________________
Writ No. 2272/2007
Ravindranath K Mohite v/s state of Maharashtra
March 2008 of High Court of Bombay
– Why penalty not imposed by SIC.
_____________________________________________________
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
CWP
No. 588 of 2010 Date of decision January 14, 2010
Khushal
Singh V/s Central Information Commission
3. The Right to Information Act ushers in a
new era of transparency in the functioning of public offices and the duties of
public authorities. We ought to be heading for a situation that many of the information
regarding public offices ought not to be required to be demanded to be secured.
On the other hand, the information must be forthcoming on their own. Every
public institution ought to be running its affairs with a degree of
transparency that would instantly evoke public confidence. In this case, there
were not merely instances where the delay had been caused that could normally
be expected of a public institution to give the
information. On the other hand, the delay had been caused by a
deliberate unwillingness to give the information of what they ought to have
had. Section 20 of the Act alone provides a reckoning that nothing
except imposition of the penalty would
be the consequence for non performance
or delayed performance. The Central Information Commission has
passed the order after due consideration of the relevant status and its own conviction
that there was an attempt at defiance and delay the process of securing information process of that the Act
makes possible. We have to charter a whole new path of understanding a new paradigm
that has been set through this Act. The bureaucratic mindset of lethargy must
go; Inertia must give place to quick response; defiance shall be tellingly
punished. The penalty enforced is justified and within the confines of what is permissible
under Section 20. [emphasis added]
__________________________________________________________
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. NO. 1924 OF 2008, Date
of Decision: 8.2.2008
Ramesh Sharma and another
v/s
The State Information
Commission, Haryana and others
___________________________________________________
IN THE HIGH
COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P. (C) 7372/2007 & CM APPL 14017/2007
Decision on: 5th August, 2010
M.K.TYAGI Versus K.L. AHUJA & ANR. .....
W.P. (C) 7372/2007 & CM APPL 14017/2007
Decision on: 5th August, 2010
M.K.TYAGI Versus K.L. AHUJA & ANR. .....
{Shri K.L.
Ahuja is CPIO, Central Vigilance Commission}
______________________________________________________________
