gy/ ‘ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No.2475 of 2007 PETiTiONERS: 1. Aghw Das, S/o Pochau Das, aged about 54 years 2. Kachara Das, S/o Shri Ghasiya Das, aged about 49 yeai's. Beth are R/e viHage — Kansa, Tahsil Dabhra, D§strict Janjg§r'C’nampa. (CG) Versus Union of India, Through Secretary‘ RTJ. (Right to information) Ministry, Department of Personnel and Training, New Deihi 2. State of Chhattisgarh, thwugh Secretary, Revenue Department, DKS Bhavan, Raipur (CG) State Chief information Commissioner, Nirmal Chhaya Bhavan. Meerdata Road, Shankar Nagari Raipur (CG) 4’ Coliector‘ Janjgir-Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (CG) Sub Divisionai Oit‘lcer (Revenue), First Appetiate Authority, Tahsii Dabhra, District Janjgir-Cnampa (CG) 6‘ Sub Divisionai Officer (Revenue), First Appeiiate Authority, Tahsii Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (CG) RESPON DENT$: 1. Tahsiidar, Sakti, State Pubiic I information Officer (Revenue), Tahsii Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (CG) Tahsiidar, Dabnra, State Public intormation Officer (Revenue), ’Tansii Dabhra, District Janjgir-Champa (CG) resent: Sim. Meena Shastri, counsel for the petitioners. Smt. Fouzia Mirza, Assistant Soiicitor Generai for Union of indie. Shri SK. Misnra, Panel Lawyer tor theStatefrespondents No.2 & 4 to 8. g$ J(\ Divisien Bench: Hon’ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra & Hon’ble Shri RN. Chandrakar, JJ. ORDER (Passed on gp’k February, 2010) The foaowing order of the Court was passed by Dhirendra Mishra, J‘ The petitioners by the instant petition have prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus against {espondent No‘1 for remova! of dimculty arising in g§ving effect to the effective implementation of the provisions of the Right to infermation Act, 2005 (for short ‘tne Aci’)‘ The grievance of the petitioners is that they applied for copy of the revenue record and copy of the award under Section 6 of the Act before the concerning Public lnformationiKOffIcer. When no order weepassed, they applied before the first appellate authority i.e. concerned SDO. However, on faiture of the first appellate authority to pass any order, they preferred second appeal before the State information Commission (for short ‘the Commission’) and the Commission vide its order dated 24-4- 2%6 (Annexure—Pl’l) directed the Collector, Janjgir-Champa to provide information free of cost after obtaining the record. An explanation was also sought from the Public information Ofticer i.e. Tehsiidar for his non- appearance before the Commission, ,in turn, the Coliector, Janjgir- Champa dfrected the Tehsildar, $akti to obtain the record from the record room and suppty copy of the record to the petitioners free of cost within 3 days. However, the order passed by the State lnformation Officer was not oompiied with even after repeated directions by the Commission to the Pubfic information Offrcer Tehsildar, Sakti. The Commission by its order dated 23rd August, 2006 (Annexure-P/7) imposed a penaity of Rs.1,000/- on Pubiic information Officer and forwarded copy of‘the order to the Coiiector with a direction to decide concerned case in accordance with Rules within 15 days and further directed to pay compensation of Rs.250r- to petitioner No.2 Kachra Das for not supplying the copy of the record in time. However, information sought by petitioner No.1 has not been furnished by respondents No.1 and 2 despite specific direction by the Commission. . Learned counsei for the petitioner submitted that respondents No.4 to 8 have failed to comply with the order passed by respondent No3 despite severa! reminders by the Commission. There is no .remedy under the Act when the Public information omcer does not comply with the finai order passed by the second appeHate authority and thus, the very object of the Act stands frustrated. The inaction on the part of the respondents is violation of Section 18 (3) and 19(8)(b) of the Act. Section 30(1) of the Act cast a duty upon the Centrai Government to pass appropriate order by pubiication in the officiai gazette making such provisions necessary or expedient for removai of the difhcuity in giving effect to the provisions of this Act. Petitioner No.1 had requestedrespondent No.1 vide his appiication dated 5-4-2007 to do the needfui so that he can get the infotmation requested for, with adequate compensation and amend the Act so that ioophoies are plugged, however, ho action has been taken so far. z . Respondents No.2 and 4 to 8 in their common return have averred that in compiiahce of the order of the Commission a sum of Rs.1 ,OOO!- has been deposited by chaiian and Rs.250!— has been paid as compensation to the wife of petitioner No.1 Aghori Das nameiy, Smt. Bedmati vide Annexure- R/i. Petitioner No.1 had appiied for certified copy of the order passed in revenue case No.60/A-90(B), 19?4-75 dated 27th March, 1976 aiong with requisite fee. The applicationwas forwarded to the SDO, Sakti on 8-12- 20i35, SDO (Revenue), in turn, addressed a ietter to the Land Record Ceii Section of the Biiaspur District with a copy to the Collector, Janjgir- Champa. Various reminders were sent for the reievant revenue record, however, since record was 30 years old, it could not be traced by the SDO (Revenue) sakti and SDO (Revenue) Dabhra and petitioner No.1 was intimated about the same. A certificate to this effect was given by SDO (Revenue) Sakti and SDO (Revenue) Dabhra vide Annexure-R/5 and Tehsiidar, Sakti vide his memo dated 21-5-2007 of Annexure-RIS informed petitioner Aghori Das that no records pertaining to revenue case No.60/A-90(B)/1974-75 is avaiiable in the Court of SDO, Sakti and, therefore, providing copy of the same wouid not be possibie. . Respondent No.1 has not filed any separate repiy and it was oraiiy submitted that they may be permitted to adopt the reply med by the State. . From the pieadings of the respective parties, it appears that information sought by petitioner No.2 was furnished by the respondents authorities, however, the Commission imposed a cost of Rs.1;OOO/- for deiay in campiiance of the order and a sum of Rs.250!- was awarded as compensatien to him. The respondents have stated on oath that they have complied with the order of the Commission and the petitioners have not rebutted the above fact in their reioinder. . in the case of petitioner No.1, the Commission has directed the Public tnformetion Officer to furnish copy of the record to petitioner No.1. From tepiy of the respondents, it appears that originai record of the revenue case couid not be traced as the same is more than 30 years old and the certincate to this effect has been issued by the concerned Revenue Officer. . Chapter ii of the Act deais with Right to Information and Obiigations of Public Authorities Section 6 provides for the procedure to be fotiowed for obtaining information and the duty of the pubiic authority on receipt of such application particuiariy wheninformation is held by another public authority. Section 7 provides that request made under Section 6 of the Act shaii be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and in any case within 3O days of the receipt of request. it also provides that where the information sought for concerns the life or liberty of a person, the same shall be provided within forty-eight hours of the receipt of the request. Where the Pubiic information Officer faiis to give decision within the period specified, it shalt be deemed to have refused the request. . Sections 8 and 9 deal with conditions in which disciosure of information is exempted. Section 19 of the Act provides that a person aggrieved by a decision of the Centrai Public information Ofhcer or the State Pubiic information Officer may prefer appeal within the specified period to such officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public information Officer or the State Public information Officer, as the case may be. Second appeal lies against the decision under sub-section (1) of Section 19 to the State information Commission or the Central information Commission, as the case may be and the decision of the Commission is finai. Sub-section (8) %Q of Sectien 19 deals with power of the Commission and it empowers the Commission to require the public authority to take any such steps as may be necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of the Act and impose penaity provided under the Act. ~10.Section 20 reads as under:- "20. ‘Penaities.- (1) Where the Centrai information Commission or the State information Commission, as ihe case may be, at the time of deciding any compiaint or i appeai is of the opinion that {he Centrai Public information Officer or the State Pubiic 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 specihed under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incompiete or misieading 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 tiii appiication is received or information is furnished, so however, the totai amount of such penaity shaii not exceed twenty-me thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public information Officer, as the case may he, shail 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 reasonabiy and diligentiy shall be on the Central Public information Officer or the State Public information Officer, as the case may be. (2) Where the Central information Commission or the tate 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 reasonabie cause and persistentiy, faiied 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 knowingiy given incorrect, incompiete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subiect of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shaii recommend for disciplinary action against the Central Pubiic information Officer or the State Pubiic information Officer, as the case may be, under the service rules applicable to him.” xi 11. From bare perusal of the scheme of the Act, it is evident that Section 7 of the Act casts a duty upon the Central Pubiic Enformation Officer or the State Public Information Officer to accept the requestfappEication for information under Section 6 and dispose of the same within the time prescribed in accordance with the provisions of the Act Sub—section (8) of Section 7 provides that where request is rejected, the information Officer shaii communicate to the applicant the reasons for rejection, the period within which appeal against rejection may be made and panicuiars of the appellate authority, whereas Section 20 provides for imposition of penaity where the Pubtic Information Officer has not complied with the provisions of the Act. 12. ln the instant case, request of petitioner No.1 for furnishing copy of the relevant order in revenue case passed on 27-3-1Q76 has been rejected on the gtound that the relevant record is not availabie and the same couid not be traced Vide order of Annexure-R/6 dated 21-5-2007 the Pubtic information Offtcer has disposed of the request for information of Petitioner No1 in accordance with Section 7 of the Act. 13. The State information Commission is empowered to examine the validity and iegaiity of the aforesaid order as an appeilate authority under Section 19 of the Act and may issue necessary direction to the Public information Officer. it is also vested with a power to impose penaity as provided under Section 20 of the Act. Question of exercising power by the Centrai Government to exercise jurisdiction under Section 30 of the Act for removai of the difficulty does not arise in the facts and circumstances of the case. 14. in the result, we do not nnd any substance in this petition and accordingty, . we dismiss the same, however, without any order as to costs. \ ii ii Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra i Sdl— Judge i RN. Chandrakar Barve Judge