TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 84X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. - W.P. No. 18653 (W) of 2009 - - - Dated:- 3-1-2013 - Jayanta Kumar Biswas, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not a resident of the municipality. On scrutiny of records, it appears that the items of information are not vague but may be lengthy. This cannot be any ground to deny information. Further, Section 3 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 gives right to every citizen of India to receive information from the Public Authority, no matter where his place of residence is. The Commission, therefore, orders that the information as sought for by the applicant shall be furnished by the State Public Information Officer of the municipality within a fortnight from the date of receipt of this order. 6 The petitioner wrote a letter dated February 2, 2009 asking the fourth respondent to give him a copy of the application for information dated November 4, 2008. Accordingly, with a covering letter dated February 6, 2009 the fourth respondent gave him a copy of the application for information dated November 4, 2008. 7. In spite of receipt of a copy of the application for information dated November 4, 2008 once again on February 13, 2009 and the order of the Commission dated January 9, 2009, the petitioner did not give the fourth respondent the requested information. Under the circ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ose the information legitimately claimed by Shri Dutta. It appears that the Public Authority of the Municipality has taken the provisions of RTI Act for a ride and expects to go unscathed for violation of the Act which the Commission can ill afford to. 7. Though the representatives of the Municipality admitted their fault in unison that does not absolve the SPIO from being penalized, moreover, the Act does not allow the Commission to exonerate the SPIO from paying penalty on the ground of admission of guilt. 8. The Commission also doubts such admission because during the course of hearing it is revealed that the information has been furnished only 2 days ago from the scheduled date of hearing. This appears to be yet another example of trickily avoiding penalty. The information which could be given just before the conduct of hearing could well be given much earlier. 13. Mr. Ghoshal appearing for the petitioner has argued as follows. Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 was not applicable to the case; for it was neither a case of refusal to receive application for information, nor a case of refusal to give information, nor a case of denial of a request for infor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ous step. He filed an appeal against the order of the Commission dated January 9, 2009. The next curious step was taken by the petitioner and it was that he wrote the letter dated April 20, 2009 addressed to the fourth respondent regarding withdrawal of the Chairman s appeal. In his reply to the show cause notice issued on the basis of the fourth respondent s second s. 18 complaint, the petitioner requested the Commission to consider the things stated in his letter dated April 20, 2009. 20. Nothing written in the letter of the petitioner dated April 20, 2009 constitutes a reasonable cause for the petitioner s failure to give the fourth respondent the requested information. Sensing real trouble the petitioner finally wrote the letter dated July 16, 2009 with which he gave the fourth respondent all the information according to the s. 6 application dated November 4, 2008. The Commission held that the petitioner ultimately gave the information with a view to escaping the penalty under s. 20(1). 21. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
