TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 1096X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs.25,000/- in two installments for delayed supply of information to the second respondent (hereinafter called the applicant). Briefly the facts are that the applicant sought for some information in August, 2006 before the Ministry of Human Resources and Development. Since the information was not held primarily by the said Department, the application was forwarded under Section 6 to the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT). The petitioner who was the designated Public Information Officer (PIO), contends having received the application on 9.10.2007 and duly forwarded it to the various agencies. He has produced a copy of the application; it runs into ten pages and pertains to various categories of information relating to the service recor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce issued earlier proposing penal action under Section 20. The Commission held that the desire of the applicant to have the proceedings dropped would not bind it and that the penalty order issued on 31.5.2007 would bind the petitioner. This Court has considered the materials and submissions. Primarily the order by which the applicant s appeal was disposed of dated 5.3.2007 proceeds on assumption that the information application was made on 25.7.2006 and followed up by remainders. This assumption facially was incorrect, since the application though forwarded to the IIT by the Central Government was received by the petitioner on 9.10.2006. Furthermore, the petitioner clearly relied upon the weeding out of records policy decision taken o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ever, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. The preceding discussion shows that at least in the opinion of this Court, there are no allegations to establish that the information was withheld malafide or unduly delayed so as to lead to an inference that petitioner was responsible for unreasonably ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
