Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2014 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (6) TMI 84 - HC - Indian LawsPenalty under s. 20(l) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 - Jurisdiction of Commission - Held that:- It is evident from the order of the Commission dated January 9, 2009 that the Commission did not impose any penalty, though it could impose penalty on the petitioner against whom the first complaint dated January 2, 2009 was filed by the fourth respondent, but only directed the petitioner to give the fourth respondent all the information according to his s. 6 application. In his letter dated February 2, 2009 the petitioner clearly said that he had received the order of the Commission dated January 9, 2009 - It is wrong to say that the provisions of s. 20 were not applicable to the case. They are applicable to a complaint filed under s. 18 of the Act. It is not the case that the complaint did not make out any case under s. 18 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Admittedly, the petitioner did not respond to the fourth respondent’s application for information dated November 4, 2008 till February 2, 2009. He complied with the s. l8 order of the Commission dated January 9, 2009 only on July 16, 2009. It is nor acceptable that once the petitioner complied with the order of the Commission dated January 9, 2009, though belatedly, penalty under s. 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 could not be imposed on him. Nor do I see any reason to accept the argument that in each and every case the Commission is not supposed to impose Rs. 250 penalty per day. - It is evident that in all the cases mentioned in sub-s. (1) of s. 20, it is the duty of the Commission to impose a Rs. 250 daily penalty till the application for information is received or the information is given. The only thing is that the total penalty amount should not exceed Rs. 25,000. The proportionality principle based on the gravity of the proven charge concept cannot apply to a case under s. 20. That will amount to unauthorised reduction of the penalty amount. A s. 20 case can be a case of penalty or no penalty, but not a case of reduced penalty - Commission has committed no wrong, and that the impugned order is not vitiated by any jurisdictional error - Decided against appellant.
|