CWP No.6558 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P.No. 6558 of 2007 Date of decision 28 .3.2008 Rajan Sachdeva ...Petitioner Versus State Information Commissioner and another ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Parveen K.Kataria Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG Punjab. M.M.KUMAR, J. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 26.2.2007 (Annexure P.7) passed by the Chief Information Officer holding that since the information has been delivered to be petitioner and delay was not deliberate or willful, no penalty could be imposed on the respondents. It is appropriate to mention that petitioner is an Advocate and working as Notary Public. He applied on 10.8.2006 on payment basis to the Public Information Officer cum District Revenue Officer, office of Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar, respondent no.2 for supply of certified copies of various documents viz. (a) certified photostat copy of the application 22.1.2006 (b) CWP No.6558 of 2007 2 certified photostat copy of record through which four certified copies were supplied to him by the District Nazar Officer. The application was allowed on 11.8.2006. The petitioner claims that information with regard to application fee of Rs.10/- was not intimated to him on 11.8.2006. The challan receipt of Rs.10/- could be given to him only on 23.8.2006 ( Annexure P.3). The case of the petitioner is that under Rule 4(4) of the Punjab Right to Information Rules, 2006 it is mandatory for the Information Officer to inform the petitioner about the total payments of fee chargeable for providing certified copies and the information was required to be given within 15 days of the receipt of application. The petitioner was informed vide letter dated 19.10.2006 that he is required to deposit Rs. 8/- which was obligatory to be supplied to him within 15 days. The petitioner deposited the requisite fee and information was supplied to him vide Annexure P.4. It is now claimed that the Chief Information Officer has committed grave error in law by feeling satisfied that the furnishing of information after 63 days was justified whereas he was under an obligation to impose penalty on respondent no.2 who has committed violation of the provisions of Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for brevity 'the Act'). The operative part of the impugned order passed by the Chief Information Commissioner reads thus: “ We find that this is too small a matter to deserve any further consideration. Information has been duly delivered. Perhaps the Deputy Commissioner's office could have been more prompt in compiling the information for delivery. The PIO of the office of Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar is advised to be more careful in future. We find that since the delay has not been CWP No.6558 of 2007 3 deliberate or willful, there is no justification for imposition of any penalty.” After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book we are of the considered view that there is no merit in this petition. The Chief Information Commissioner has recorded a categorical finding that although there is delay of 63 days in communication of information yet the delay is neither deliberate nor willful. The Commissioner has further concluded that there was no justification for imposition of any penalty. Once the Chief Information Officer has taken the particular view by taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case it is not possible for us to set aside those finding by substituting the same with our own view. According to Section 20 of the Act there could be numerous situations when the penalty could be imposed which includes refusal to receive the application for information without any reasonable cause or failure to furnish information within the time specified in sub section 1 of Section 7 of the Act. It is pertinent to mention that a period 30 days itself has been provided by sub section 1 of Section 7 of the Act but delay beyond 30 days has to be without any reasonable cause. If the delay to supply the information is malafide or it amounts to giving incorrect, incomplete or misleading information then also penalty could be imposed @ Rs.250/- per day. Taking into account afore-mentioned provision, we are of the view that there is no room for us to conclude that the delay was not reasonable or it was willful or delay was actuated by malafide intention. The order of the Chief Information Commissioner does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court and imposing penalty @ Rs.250/- per day. The writ petition is wholly without merit and the same is liable to be CWP No.6558 of 2007 4 dismissed. As a sequel to the above discussion, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Sabina) 28.3.2008 Judge okg