CWP No. 22366 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 22366 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: December 15, 2010 M.C. Goel .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State Information Commission and others ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. A.K. Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. This petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order Annexure P-8 dated 14.12.2009. The petitioner is serving as Superintending Engineer, Yamuna Water Services Circle, Jind. The petitioner admittedly is State Public Information Officer. 2. It appears that respondent no. 3 Sh. B.R. Dalal filed an application for information. The information in context of para no. 13 was not supplied and, therefore, the matter was carried to State Information Commission. The petitioner in the capacity of SPIO appeared before the authority. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case including the harassment caused to respondent no. 3, other than providing bus fare to respondent no. 3, penalty amounting to Rs. 10,000/- has been imposed. CWP No. 22366 of 2010 2 3. In brief, argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not obliged to supply information. The Executive Engineer serving at Jind in Yamuna Water Services Circle was required to supply information. 4. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel. 5. The petitioner was summoned by the State Information Commission and was given opportunity to file reply. It appears to be a intra-department dispute between the SPIO and PIO for which the petition has been filed only in challenge to imposition of penalty. 6. Considering the issue in that context, I find that in para no. 1 of the impugned order, the following has been recorded:- “The appellant stated that he has attended a total of 10 hearings, seven of the State Information Commissioner and three of the First Appellate Authority so far in this case and yet he has not been provided complete and correct information by the Respondents. In view of this he requested that he should be suitably compensated for the financial loss suffered by him.” 7. It is most unfortunate that a person who has right to information approached the authorities, however, the information was not given. Even while passing impugned order, certain directions have been issued to supply photocopy of the documents in relation to one Sultan Singh, certified by the respondents. This is despite the fact that the application itself was filed by the private respondent on 18.08.2008. The information was required to be provided within 30 days as per the mandate of the Statute. Even till date, the complete information has not been CWP No. 22366 of 2010 3 supplied, as admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, in relation to Sh. Sultan Singh. An innocuous stand was taken by the petitioner that information has been lost. Information/documents available with government agencies are required to be maintained. Section 4 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 obligates a public authority to maintain all its record duly catalogued and indexed in the manner provided. Clearly the petitioner and his department have failed to comply with the directions. 8. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find that the order passed by State Information Commission suffers from any legal infirmity so as to call for invoking extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The State Information Commission has come to a conclusion that the petitioner is responsible in causing delay in supplying information. The petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing. In such circumstances, the Writ Court will not embark on an enquiry to see as to who is at fault, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. Petition dismissed. 15.12.2010 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?