,<a; HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRTT PETmON (C) No. 3856 of2007 PETmONER : Fakhruddin Ahmed Khan, aged 45 yeare, son of Late Shri Moinuddin Klian, resident of Jyotipur, Pendraroad, Tehsil Pendra, District - Bilaspur VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. Chhattisgarh State Information Comnrission through the Cliief Iirfonnation Comnussioner, Nirmal CUhaya Bhavan, Meera Datar Road, Shanker Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Chief Executive OfHcer-cum-Public Information OlBcer, Janpad Panchavat, Gaurela, Disti-ict Bilaspur (C.G.) tlu-ougli Shri B.L.Banjare, erstwhile C.E.O. now attached to flie of5ce of the ComnMSsioner, depaitment of S.T./S.C. Development, Raipur (C.G.) •WRTT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTTTLTION OF INTDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnlhoti-l. J, Present: Shri Somnath Verma, Advocate forthe petitioner. ORDERCORAL) (Passed on 10th day of August, 2009) 1. Chaflenge in fhis petition is to tfae order dated 13 March, 2Q07(Armexure P/4) passed by fhe respondent in Appeal No. 75/2007, whereby it was ordered to provide the requisite information to the petitioner within a period of 15 days free of cost and a compensation ofRs. 200/- under the provisions ofsection 19(8)(b) ofthe Right to Infonnation Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act') to the petitioner was also ordered. 2. The brieffacts, as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner made an application to the^ChiefExecutive Ofiicer (for short 'CEO'), Janpad Panchayat, Pendraroad on 11 November, 2005 alongwitfa tlie prescribed fee, seeking certain information under the provisions of Ri^it to Information Act, 2005. Since the information sought by the petitioner was not supplied by the CEO, the petitioner made a complaint before the respondent. The respondent directed the petitioner to file an appeal before \.-<% .2 the appellate aufhority i.e. fhe CEO, District Panchayat, Bilaspur. The petitioner filed aa appeal before the appellate aufhonty on 7 August, 2006. The petitioner also filed an application for imposing penalty upon the Public Information Officer i.e. the CEO, Janpad Panchayat, Pendraroad, on 6 November, 2006. The appellate authority by order dated 20 November, 2006 (Annexure P/3), directed the petitioner to deposit fees for supply offhe information at the rate of Rs. 100/- per page. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent which was decided on 13 Mareb^ 2007 (Aimexure P/4). It was directed that the mformation shall be supplied to tfae petitioner free of cost and a compensation of Rs. 200/- was ordered to be paid to the petjtioner. Against the order dated 13 March, 2007 (Annexure P/4), the petitioner filed aii application for review with regard to imposition ofpenalty. It was informed to fhe petitiouer by fhe respondent that there is no provision for review of the order passed by the Cpmmissioner, State Information Commissjon. 3. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that under section 20(1) ofthe Act, a penalty is to be imposed at the rate of Rs. 250/- each day till application isreceived or infonnation is famished. According tQ Shri Verma, the requisite infonnation sought by the petitioner was not received within the prescribed time and there was a delay m submitting the requisfte iiifomiation and as such, fhe maximiun penalty of Rs. 25,000/- ought to have been imposed on fhe CEO, Janpad Panchayat, Pendraroad. 4. I have heard leamed counsel appearmg for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and documents appendedthereto. ^:^^^ ^ 5. Section 20(1) ofthe Act reads as under: "20. Penalties - (1) Where Ihe Central Infonnation Commission or the State Infonnation Commission, as the ease may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opiiiion that t!ie Central Publie Infonnation OfBeer or fhe State Public Information OfHcer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refased to receive aii application for mformation or has not fumished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for infomiation or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading infomiation or destroyed information which was the subject offhetequestor obstructed in any manner in fiiniishing tfae information, it shall impose a penalty oftwo hundred and fifty mpees each day till applieation is received or mfonnation is fumished, so however, the total amount ofsuch penalty shall not exceedtwenty-fivethousand mpees: Provided that the Central Public Information OfGcer or the State Public Information OfEcer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasotiable opportunity ofbeing heard befoi'e any penalty is imposedon him: Provided further tliat the burden of proving fhat he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on tfae Central Public Information OfBcer or the State Public Information Officer, as the easemay be. 6. The penalty of Rs. 250/- each day is dependent on certaia conditions, firstly, the Commissioner should be of the opinion fhat the delay was without any reasonable cause or with malafide intention, the request for information was denied. or misleading information or destroyed information was given to the applicant. Even otherwise, in the case on haad, penalty has not been nnposed but a compensation under section 19(8)(b) ofthe Act, has been ordered. Section 19(8)(b) ofthe Act,reads asunder: "19.(8) In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as tlie ease may be, has the power to,- (a) require the public authority to take any such step as may be necessary to secure compliance with the provisions offhis Aet, mcluding - (i) xxx xxx xxx (ii) xxx xxx xxx (iii) xsx xxx xsx (iv) xxx xxx . sxx (v) xxx . xxx xxx Amit (vi) XXK xxx xxx (b)require fhe publie authority to compensate the complamaiit for any loss or other detriment suffered; (c) xxx xxx xxx (d) xxx . xxx xxx" 7. In the present case, the Cotrumssioner, it appears has come to the conclusion that fhere was a reasonable cause for delay in famishing the information. Thus, the contention of Shri Verma Ihat the respondent ought to have imposedpenalty ofRs. 250/- each day till the infomiation is fumished, and in total a sum of Rs. 25,000/- should be paid as compensation, is not tenable. The petitioner has failed to establish that the ingredients as aforestated in section 20(1) oftheActhas been falfilled. It appears that the necessary ingredient, i.e. in opinion fonnation of the Coinmissioner on the basis offacts available, the respondent had found reasonable cause for delay and as such statutory proyisions ofimposition ofRs. 250/- per dayto the maximum of Rs. 25000/- was rightly not exercised. I do not fmd any irregularity or illegality inthe order passed by the respondent in imposition of a competisation of Rs. 200/- under the pronsibns of section 19(8)(b) offhe Act. The impugned order dated 13 March, 2007 (Armexure P/4) isjust, proper and needs no interference. 8. In view ofthe foregoing, this petition is disniissed. No order asto costs. 9. Certified copy ofthis order may be supplied to the parties after carrying out necessary amendment in the petition by the petitioner. Sdf- SatishK.Agnihotri •;:;-::l':'Ju(;^e.