9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 515X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is case has been handled by the public authority. The information asked for should be common knowledge and is suitable for suo moto disclosure u/s 4(1) of the Act. Had an effort been made to conform to this provision, the public authority, the appellant and this Commission would have been saved much time and expense. We have examined the file and heard both parties. We find that the applicant has not been given the information that he has sought, not even the promotion rules, except a copy of the seniority list, which was attested and certified by the PIO during the hearing. The Appellate Authority has failed to apply his mind to the appeal and dismissed it having been told that the information and been supplied, without caring to confirm this with the appellant or indeed giving him a chance to be heard which together with there being no evidence of the AA's decision having been received by the appellant arouses the suspicion that this decision was only an afterthought in the apprehension that the applicant might go in appeal. The South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. is directed to provide all the information asked for by the appellant to him within fifteen working days from the date of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SP Chaubey, treated as CPIO u/s 5(5) has stated that the SECL has no clues governing this procedure but only established practice, termed "Niyam" in Hindi, the language used in the response to the appellant's application. Regarding this the full information has been provided and there are no seniority rules to provide. Appellant has every right to agitate the SECL have such rules, but this Commission is not the competent authority to take a decision on such a matter. However, under Sec 19(3) we direct SECL to publish for the information of all its employees, the established current practice for considering promotion, preferably on the internet in keeping with Sec 4(1) of the Act. Respondents denied that the public authority had taken any vindictive action against the appellant, and had issued no order of suspension but only served a charge sheet not related to the appeal. We have examined the charge sheet, a copy of which has been received only recently. There is indeed no specific mention of information supplied to the Commission, but the Charge Sheet charges the appellant with not having taken recourse to remedies available within the public authority and instead sought to depen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as no reasonable cause for the delay, the CIC fell into error in not imposing the penalty and in merely recommending disciplinary action. In addition to attacking the order as arbitrary and unjustified, the petitioner contends that he had to shockingly face a charge- sheet, and even though he has now been promoted, the third respondent has not indicated that the charge-sheet has been dropped. The petitioner contends that the allegation in the charge sheet was his (the petitioner's) dereliction in filing an application, under the Act, and eliciting information outside of the organization's channels. It is submitted that this allegation, besides being unfounded, undermines the purpose of the Act, which does not require any individual or applicant to demonstrate locus standi. So long as information is in the form mandated, and is not exempted from disclosure, everyone has the right to access it, whether he is related to the organization holding the information or not. 6. The third respondent, in reply, and through its counsel, Ms. Yogmaya Agnihotri, contends that action recommended by the CIC was indeed taken and that departmental proceedings were initiated against the sixth res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly after the CIC issued notice, did the third respondent furnish the information. It was in these circumstances that CIC issued notice to the PIO calling upon him why penal action should not be taken. That delay occurred, beyond the stipulated period in furnishing information is self evident. Both the orders dated 27-3-2006 and 29-5-2006 categorically record that there was delay. The only question, therefore, was whether after issuing notice and hearing the concerned deemed PIO - the sixth respondent, the CIC acted within its jurisdiction in not imposing the penalty of Rs. 25,000/-. 9. Section 20, which is the provision enabling the CIC to impose penalty, reads as follows :- "20. Penalties. - (1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or mala fidely denied the request ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recorded that the 6th respondent did not furnish any reasonable cause for the delay and that this fact stood "established". It desisted from imposing the penalty which it was undoubtedly competent to under Section 20(1). It, however, recommended that action should be taken against the concerned Public Information Officer i.e. the sixth respondent under Section 20(2). That part of the order is not in dispute. 11. Now, it is a well established proposition that a Tribunal - as the CIC undeniedly is - can be corrected in exercise of judicial review jurisdiction by the High Court, if it fails to exercise jurisdiction lawfully vested in it or acts beyond its jurisdiction, an expression that includes acting contrary to the provisions of law, or established principles of law or the Constitution. This proposition has been in existence for half a century since Hari Vishnu Kamat v. Ahmad Ishaque - AIR 1955 SC 233, where the Supreme Court declared the parameters of judicial review against orders of quasi judicial bodies, and tribunals. These were explained in the later judgment, in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai - 2003 (6) SCC 675, in the following terms : "............. the High Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in law. in such cases, it is cold comfort for a litigant - such as the petitioner/applicant - who was driven to seek information, to approach the CIC, at Delhi, to be told that the erring official would be proceeded with departmentally especially after recording that the lapse i.e. the delay or even the unreasonableness of withholding of information was unjustified. The petitioner in effect was doubly deprived - in the first instance, of the information which was sought for, and secondly, he was exposed to an unjustified threat of enquiry. In these circumstances, even though the CIC recommended disciplinary action under Section 20(2), its denial of any penalty order under Section 20, in the considered opinion of this Court, cannot be upheld. 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 circum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
