Civil Writ Petition No.2491 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.2491 of 2009 Date of Decision:27.04.2011 Municipal Council, Sirhind ......Petitioner Versus State Information Commissioner, Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Kamal Satija, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Sartaj Singh Gill, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr.Rahul Bhargva, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Mr.H.S.Sethi, Advocate, for respondent No.3. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The compendium of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present writ petition and emanating from the record, is that information seeker complainant-N.K.Sayal son of Late Sh.Karam Chand Sayal-respondent No.2(for brevity “the complainant”), moved an application dated 01.10.2007(Annexure P-1) to the State Public Information Officer, office of the Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Sirhind(for short “the SPIO”) and sought the information mentioned therein, invoking the provisions of The Right to Information Act, 2005(hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”). The SPIO was stated to have supplied the information to the complainant, vide letter dated 29.01.2008(Annexure P-3). 2. The complainant claimed that as the information was incomplete, therefore, he moved another application(Annexure P-4) and sought the complete information, but in vain. Thereafter, the complainant filed the complaint before the State Information Commissioner(respondent No.1)(for short “the SIC”), who Civil Writ Petition No.2491 of 2009 2 directed the SPIO to ensure that the correct information is supplied to the complainant, within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of the order, by virtue of order dated 01.02.2008(Annexure P-6). 3. Instead of complying with the directions contained in the order (Annexure P-6) and despite issuance of show cause notice dated 29.02.2008 (Annexure P-8),the complete information was not supplied to the complainant. Again, the SIC directed the SPIO to supply the same, by means of orders dated 27.03.2008(Annexure P-10), 06.06.2008(Annexure P-12) and 18.08.2008 (Annexure P-13), but the position remained the same. The SPIO did not supply the information and delayed the matter for one reason or the other. Ultimately, the SIC imposed a penalty of Rs.5,000/- on the SPIO, by way of impugned order dated 31.10.2008(Annexure P-14). 4. Petitioner-the Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Sirhind, did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned order(Annexure P-14). 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition in this context. 6. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that since, the petitioner has duly explained the delay, for not providing the complete information to the complainant, so, the impugned order imposing the penalty is illegal, is not only devoid of merit but misconceived as well. 7. As is evident from the record that the complainant moved the application dated 01.10.2007(Annexure P-1) to the SPIO, but the complete information was not supplied to him, despite specific directions issued by the SIC. Ultimately, the SIC issued a show cause notice(Annexure P-8) to the SPIO under Section 20 of the Act. In pursuance thereof, he(SPIO) appeared and stated that the information was to be supplied by the Junior Engineer, who was transferred and Civil Writ Petition No.2491 of 2009 3 posted in other Nagar Panchayat Khanauri. The SIC again directed the SPIO to supply the information, by virtue of order dated 27.03.2008(Annexure P-10), which in substance is, as under:- “PIO is directed to supply the information relating to the works for the period mentioned in the application for information work wise, showing material purchased, payments made to labour etc. for carrying out the work. Since, the works were carried out during the tenure of Sh.Harmel Singh Jhandu, he should prepare this information and should be present personally on the next date of hearing, along with the PIO. A copy of this order should also go to Principal Secretary, Local Govt. Department, who is requested to ensure that Sh.Harmel Singh Jhandu should appear before the Commission along with the information relating to a works while he was working with Municipal Council, Sirhind. Copy of the orders should also be sent to Sh.Harmel Singh Jhandu who is working in the Nagar Panchayat, Khanauri to be present on the next date of hearing along with the information for the works carried out by him for the period as asked in application for information. Complainant states that he should be compensated for his number of visits to the Commission Office and detriment suffered by him in not getting the information in time. The respondent is also directed to file his written submission on the prayer of the complainant for the award of the compensation under Section 19(8)(b) RTI Act, 2005 by the next date of hearing.” 8. Instead of reproducing the entire proceedings and in order to avoid the repetition, suffice it to say that the information was not supplied to the complainant by the SPIO, despite the specific directions of the SIC, by way of orders(Annexures P-10 to P-13). 9. In this manner, finding no alternative, the SIC passed the impugned order dated 31.10.2008(Annexure P-14). The operative part of which is, as under:- “It is observed, that though the information is sought as earlier as in October, 2007 and the same is still not forthcoming. PIO has shown his helplessness in providing the information. As per his version the information is to be provided by Junior Engineer, Works Clerk, Civil Writ Petition No.2491 of 2009 4 Accountant and Store Keeper and he has already issued direction to all the concerned officials to provide the information, but still the information is not being provided. It is observed, that either the information is not being provided deliberately or proper accounts of expenditure as per Government rules have not been kept and the Public Authority i.e. Municipal Council, Sirhind, is responsible for all this delay. In view of such callous attitude on the part of the Municipal Council, Sirhind, Complainant deserves to be compensated for the unnecessary harassment caused to him in getting the required information. He is, therefore, awarded compensation of Rs.5,000/- should be paid before the next date of hearing by the Public Authority. Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Sirhind, should ensure that this compensation is paid to the complainant before the next date of hearing and Executive Officer, MC, Sirhind, is also directed to be personally present on the next date of hearing along with the information asked for.” 10. Meaning thereby, the SPIO did not supply the complete information and considerably delayed the matter, despite repeated directions under the Act, which was legislated to ensure the transparency in the system in order to curb the menace of corruption. The SIC has recorded the valid reasons and correctly imposed the penalty on the SPIO of the petitioner-Municipal Council in this relevant connection. Such order, containing the valid reasons, cannot legally be interfered with, in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court, unless the same is perverse and without jurisdiction. As, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, the impugned order(Annexure P-14) deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 11. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 12. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. April 27, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE