CWP No.7348 of 2008.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.7348 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 06.04.2011 **** Sukhdev Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. RS Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG Punjab **** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner was posted as Executive Officer in the Municipal Council, Rampura Phul, District Bathinda at the relevant time when information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short, ‘the RTI Act’) pertaining to the certified copy of a Gazette Notification of Punjab Government was sought by the applicant under the RTI Act. The Assistant Public Information Officer of the Municipality vide his communication dated 19.06.2007 informed the applicant that “the demanded notification is not available in this office but for obtaining any no CWP No.7348 of 2008.doc - 2 – objection certificate regarding outside the Municipal limits you are required to pay a fee of Rs.500 on account of the issuance of such certificate”. (2). It may be mentioned here that as per the guidelines issued by the State Government on 11.10.2005 (Annexure P1), the Executive Officer is to act as an Appellate Authority under the RTI Act and not as a Public Information Officer. (3). The complainant was dis-satisfied with the above-stated reply dated 19.06.2007 received by him and approached the State Information Commission, Punjab. It appears that vide order dated 13.07.2007, the Commission directed the Executive Officer of the Municipal Council (the petitioner) to remain present. As the petitioner failed to appear before the Commission without giving any satisfactory explanation, that he has been handed down with the impugned order dated 01.10.2007 (Annexure P11) imposing a penalty of Rs.250/- per day w.e.f. 13.07.2007 subject to a maximum of Rs.25,000/-. (4). Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned order, I am of the considered view that the action taken by the State Information Commission is grossly harsh and cannot be upheld. I say so for the reason that the petitioner was not the Public Information Officer obligated under the Act to supply the CWP No.7348 of 2008.doc - 3 – information to the complainant. If there was any deficiency in the information, the Commission ought to have summoned the Public Information Officer and not the petitioner who was to perform the Appellate duties. In fact, the complainant ought to have been relegated to the Appellate Authority before rushing to the State Commission. It also appears that the fine has been imposed on the petitioner as he caused annoyance by not appearing before the Commission. (5). For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned dated 01.10.2007 (Annexure P11) is quashed. (6). Dasti . 06.04.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge