CWP No. 18289 of 2009 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … CWP No. 18289 of 2009 Date of decision: January 19,2011 Harjinder Kaur ..Petitioner. Versus State Information Commissioner and others ..Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. Amit Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sartaj Singh, DAG, Punjab for the respondent No.1. Mr.Namit Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.2. ... M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J.(Oral) The crux of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that an application dated 6.2.2008 (Annexure P-1) to seek information,sent by post by G.S.Sikka, Advocate, (respondent No.2), was received by respondent No.3 on 14.2.2008 . Petitioner was advised to send ` 26/- as requisite fees for supplying the information vide letter dated 14.3.2008 (Annexure P-2). Instead of depositing the requisite fees, respondent No.2 was stated to have asked respondent No.3 to supply the information free of costs. 2. Not only that, respondent No. 2 refused to pay the fees on the ground that he has already filed the appeal before the State Information Commissioner,(for short “SIC”) Chandigarh and the same is subjudice, vide letter Annexure P-3. As the Principal was on leave, therefore, petitioner Harjinder Kaur was officiating as Vice Principal. Although respondent No.2 did not pay the CWP No. 18289 of 2009 2 requisite fee, still, petitioner supplied the requite information to him vide letter dated 7.4.2008 (Annexure P-4). Still the “SIC” imposed a penalty of ` 5000/- on the petitioner, without issuing any notice to her by virtue of impugned order dated 4.11.2009(Annexure P-9). 3. The petitioner did not feel satisfied and filed the instant writ petition challenging the impugned order Annexure P-9, invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the instant writ petition deserves to be accepted in this context. 5. As is evident from the record that application (Annexure P-1) filed by respondent No.2 was received by post in the office of Principal, S.D. College for Women, (respondent No.3) on 14.2.2008. He was advised to deposit the required fees of ` 26/- vide letter Annexure P-2 but instead of depositing the fees, he asked the College to supply the information free of cost. Thereafter, even he refused to pay fees on the ground that he has already filed the appeal before the SIC. 6. What is not disputed here is that although the petitioner was officiating Principal and was not the S.P.I.O., so no penalty can be imposed on her, that too, without issuing any notice to her. It is not a matter of dispute that complainant-respondent did not deposit the requisite fee, still for abundant caution, petitioner supplied the information to the complainant, vide letter dated 7.4.2008(Annexure P-4). 7. Once the information has already been supplied by the petitioner, who was (not even 'SPIO' ) officiating Vice Principal, despite the fact that complainant did not deposit the requisite fees. In that eventuality, it cannot possibly be saith that she was negligent in any manner in this relevant connection. Moreover, she was not the SPIO of the institution. She was only officiating as Vice Principal. Therefore, to me, no penalty can be imposed upon her, that too, without issuing any notice to her(petitioner) . On the contrary, the CWP No. 18289 of 2009 3 complainant appears to be at fault. Neither he has deposited the fees, nor even filed any appeal before the first Appellate Authority and straight away rushed to the second Appellate Authority i.e., SIC, who passed the impugned order in an arbitrary manner. 8. Therefore, the impugned order Annexure P-9 cannot legally be maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 9. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant writ petition is accepted. Consequently, the impugned order (Annexure P-9) is hereby quashed in this relevant-connection. January 19,2011 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) nk JUDGE Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No CWP No. 18289 of 2009 4