*1* wp.9624.10.924.sxw kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9624 OF 2010 Prakash Sonu Kadam. ..Petitioner -Versus- Sandip Vasant Bane and others. ..Respondents .......... Mr.Shashank Mangale, for the Petitioner. Mr.Sandip Vasant Bane, Respondent No.1, present in person. Mr.A.B.Vagyani, AGP, for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3. .......... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 14th July, 2011. P.C.: 1 Heard both sides. 2 Leave to amend. Amendment be carried out forthwith. 3 Rule. The Respondents waive service. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. 4 The order impugned in this petition is passed under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 by the State Information Commission, Konkan Division, Mumbai in Appeal No.KR-781/2009. 5 It is contention of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner that the Petitioner was working as Taluka Inspector of Land Records at Deorukh and was designated as Public Information Officer at the relevant time. The Respondent No.1 to this petition made an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on 20.09.2008 seeking certain information. On that application, an order was made on 21.09.2008 by one Mr.Rain who was the then Taluka Inspector of Land Records and Public Information Officer. The Petitioner joined the post on *2* wp.9624.10.924.sxw 25.09.2008. The Petitioner has pointed out as to why he was transferred from the office at Malvan to Sangameshwar. The Petitioner also pointed out that he has not dealt with the application of the Respondent No.1 and it was his predecessor who has dealt with and passed the order. The Respondent No.1 being aggrieved by that order preferred an appeal under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 to the appellate authority i.e. District Superintendent of Land Records. On that appeal, an order was passed, copy of which is at page-20 of the paper book. That appeal was partly allowed and it was directed that the information in relation to 17 proceedings from January, 2006 to 16.12.2008 should be provided to the Respondent No.1. In the sense, the Respondent No.1 can attend the office and inspect the record pertaining thereto and even obtain the copies thereof. 6 It is stated that being aggrieved and dissatisfied with this order, the Respondent No.1 approached the State Information Commission, Konkan Division who made interim order on the said appeal on 18.05.2009. This interim order is remand to the first Appellate Authority. 7 Pursuant to the order of remand, the first Appellate Authority took up the matter and passed an order on 02.07.2009 which is an order of rejection of the said appeal. Aggrieved by this order dated 02.07.2009, the Respondent No.1 approached the State Information Commission which allowed his Appeal on 05.09.2009 and directed that the information be provided within 10 days from the said order. The Petitioner was directed to show-cause as to why penalty should not be imposed on him for delay in providing the information. The Petitioner furnished his explanation by pointing out that it was not his act which was responsible for information being not made available and it was the act of *3* wp.9624.10.924.sxw his predecessor. The proceedings were pending before the Appellate Authority and the original order was not made by him, but by his predecessor. For all these reasons, the penalty should not be imposed. 8 However, after hearing both sides, the State Information Commission by the impugned order imposed the penalty of Rs.1000/- on the Petitioner. It is this order which is challenged in the present Writ Petition. 9 My attention is invited by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner to Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 titled as “penalties” and particularly sub-section (1) thereof. It is submitted that when the application for information is refused without any reasonable cause or the information is not provided within the time specified in Section 7(1) and the request is denied in malafide manner and knowingly the information which is incorrect, incomplete or misleading is given or such information is destroyed or the informant is obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, the penalties can be imposed. 10 The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that in the instant case, the impugned order does not assign any reason, save and except stating that the information was made available within 05 days from the date of the order dated 05.09.2009. The learned Member has observed that the explanation given by the Petitioner is not satisfactory. He submits that admittedly if the matter was dealt with by the predecessor of the Petitioner and the Petitioner came subsequently, then, he cannot be said to be liable to pay penalty personally for some others act. For all these reasons, he prays that the impugned order be quashed and set aside. 11 In support of his contentions, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Patna High Court reported in AIR 2010 (Patna) 75 *4* wp.9624.10.924.sxw (Arbind Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar). 12 On the other hand, the Respondent No.1/original Complainant has submitted that he has been made to run from pillar to post for seeking this information. He has been not provided information from August, 2008 till 10.09.2009. The information was not such as was incapable of being provided. All the time he had to approach the appellate authority or second appellate authority and it is only then the information sought was provided. Therefore, the order imposing penalty is justified and no interference therein is necessary in writ jurisdiction. He, therefore, prays that the Writ Petition be dismissed. 13 For properly appreciating the rival contentions, reference will have to be made to Section 20, which reads thus:- “20. Penalties.- (1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central *5* wp.9624.10.924.sxw Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. (2) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause and persistently, failed to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall recommend for disciplinary action against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under the service rules applicable to him.” 14 A perusal of the said section would reveal that the opinion of the authority that the information is not provided without any reasonable cause is pre-condition for imposition of penalty. That opinion has to be rendered taking into account the facts and circumstances of each case. If the authority is of the opinion that the information is denied without reasonable cause, then, cogent and satisfactory reasons must be assigned for recording such opinion before penalty is imposed. If the penalty is imposed so as to have deterrent effect and the reasons therefor have to be indicated clearly, then, all the more in the instant case, the impugned order does not meet the requirement of Section 20(1). The State Information Commission has not indicated as to why despite the information being provided within the period specified in the order dated 05.09.2009, that the Petitioner is still held liable and the penalty is imposed upon him. If the personal penalty is to be imposed on the *6* wp.9624.10.924.sxw Petitioner, it ought to have been indicated by the State Information Commission as to whether, the information which was directed to be provided by him is not provided without any reasonable cause. A perusal of the order passed in the instant case would reveal that the State Information Commission was aware that initially there was an order passed in August, 2008 and there were appeals challenging the said order. It is the State Information Commission which remanded the matter on one occasion and even after remand, the matter came back to the State Information Commission and the final order was passed by it on 05.09.2009. If from the date of the final order, the information was provided within the period specified in the said order, then, why this penalty and that too personally, has been imposed on the Petitioner, is not clarified at all. More importantly when initial order was made, the Petitioner was not holding the charge of the Taluka Inspector of Land Records. 15 In these circumstances, for non compliance with the provisions of Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the impugned order cannot be sustained and it is, accordingly, quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). No order as to costs. 16 If the amount of penalty is deposited, the Petitioner can seek refund thereof on production of an authenticated copy of this order. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)