Civil Writ Petition No.5246 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.5246 of 2009 Date of Decision:27.05.2011 Satpal Singh ......Petitioner Versus State Information Commission, Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Sanjay Vashisth, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Rajiv Prashad, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Nemo for respondent No.4. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The epitome of the facts, which requires to be mentioned for deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that petitioner-Satpal was the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat of Village Tigrana, District Bhiwani. Complainant-Subhash son of Rohtash- respondent No.4-information-seeker(for short “the complainant”) moved an application dated 26.09.2008(Annexure P-1) to the Block Development and Panchayat Officer and sought the entire informations regarding the development works carried out by the petitioner from the year 2005 to 26.09.2008(the date of filing the application), invoking the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005(hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”). The BDPO sent the application to the petitioner vide order dated 01.10.2008 and letter dated 03.10.2008(Annexure P-2). 2. After receipt of the application, the petitioner wrote a letter dated Civil Writ Petition No.5246 of 2009 2 09.10.2008(Annexure P-3), informing the complainant that the information demanded by him from 2005 to financial year 2008, is running into 1804 pages and asked him to deposit Rs,18,040/- as statutory fees. It was stipulated in the letter that, if the complainant failed to deposit the requisite fees upto 03.11.2008, then, it will be deemed that he is no more interested to take the copies of the documents. At the same time, the petitioner also informed the BDPO by way of letter dated 05.11.2008(Annexure P-4) in this context. 3. Dissatisfied with the action of the petitioner, the complainant moved a petition and the BDPO after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion, that the petitioner Sarpanch has duly informed, but the complainant did not deposit the requisite fees for obtaining the copies of the documents. Therefore, it was held that the petitioner did not refuse to give information, rather the complainant was at fault and the petition was dismissed, by way of order dated 25.11.2008(Annexure P-5). 4. Aggrieved by the order(Annexure P-5), the complainant instituted the application dated 20.11.2008(Annexure P-6) before the District Development and Panchayat Officer-respondent No.2(for short “the DDPO”), who accepted the plea of the complainant, as First Appellate Authority, by means of impugned order dated 02.01.2009(Annexure P-10). 5. Still aggrieved by the impugned order(Annexure P-10), the complainant filed the appeal, which was accepted and the State Information Commission(for brevity “the SIC”) directed the petitioner, to supply the entire information within a period of 15 working days and also issued show cause notice to him under Section 20(1) of the Act, by virtue of impugned order dated 24.02.2009(Annexure P-13). 6. The petitioner did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned orders(Annexures P-10 and P-13), invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Civil Writ Petition No.5246 of 2009 3 7. The case set-up by the petitioner, in brief, insofar as relevant, was that after receiving the application from the BDPO, he wrote a letter(Annexure P-3), informing the complainant that the information demanded by him from the year 2005 to financial year 2008, is running into 1804 pages and asked him to deposit Rs,18,040/- as statutory fees. But he did not comply with the directions and failed to deposit the requisite fees. The BDPO has rightly negatived the claim of the complainant through the medium of order(Annexure P-5), but the same was illegally set aside by the DDPO, by means of impugned order(Annexure P-10) and by the SIC, by virtue of impugned order(Annexure P-13). 8. The petitioner claimed that the impugned orders have been passed in complete violations of the provisions of the Act and Rules 4 and 5 framed thereunder and he cannot be forced to cause monetary loss to the Gram Panchayat Exchequer by ignoring Rules 4 and 5 of the Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005(for brevity “the Relevant Fees Rules”) in this regard. The impugned orders(Annexures P-10 and P-13) were stated to be illegal and against the statutory provisions. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the petitioner sought the quashment of the impugned orders(Annexures P-10 and P-13), in the manner described hereinabove. 9. The respondents contested the claim of the petitioner. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed their separate written statements supporting their respective indicated orders. However, complainant-respondent No.4 filed his separate written statement, inter alia, pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the writ petition, cause of action and locus standi of the petitioner. It was claimed that the petitioner intentionally did not supply the information, despite the fact that he(complainant) deposited the amount of Rs.12,000/- in the office of respondent No.3, which was later on returned to him. It will not be out of place to mention here that the contesting respondents have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the writ petition and prayed for its Civil Writ Petition No.5246 of 2009 4 dismissal. That is how, I am seized of the matter. 10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, the instant writ petition deserves to be accepted in this respect. 11. As is evident from the record that the complainant has sought the information of the entire development work of the village from the year 2005 to 2008, through the medium of application(Annexure P-1), which was sent by the BDPO to the petitioner. Having received the application, the petitioner wrote a letter(Annexure P-3), informing the complainant that the information demanded by him from 2005 to 26.09.2008, is running into 1804 pages and asked him to deposit Rs,18,040/- as statutory fees. It was clearly stipulated in it that, if the complainant failed to deposit the requisite fees upto 03.11.2008, then it will be deemed that he is no more interested to take the copies of the documents. Since, the complainant did not deposit the amount of requisite fees, as per Rules 4 and 5 of the Relevant Fees Rules, so, the petitioner was not legally required to supply the information to him. The petitioner informed the BDPO, by way of letter(Annexure P-3) in this regard. Taking into consideration the entire material placed on record and non- deposit of requisite fees, the BDPO negatived the claim of the complainant, vide order(Annexure P-5). 12. Be that as it may, but the DDPO by virtue of impugned order (Annexure P-10) has accepted the claim of the complainant. Furthermore, the SIC has again directed the petitioner to supply the information, without deposit of any requisite fees and issued show cause notice under Section 20(1) of the Act, without adhering to the actual facts in this context, by virtue of impugned order dated 24.02.2009(Annexure P-13). The operative part of which is, as under:- “After careful consideration of the facts and circumstances and on perusal of document on file, the Commission found that requested information has not furnished so far. It is also evident that the RTI Act was taken casually by Sarpanch of village Tigrana and BDPO, Bhiwani. Civil Writ Petition No.5246 of 2009 5 It is hereby ordered that the SPIO-cum-Sarpanch of village Tigrana is directed to supply the information to the appellant/complainant within 15 working days on receiving the order of the Commission free of costs. A show cause notice be issued under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act against the SPIO-cum-Sarpanch of village Tigrana to show cause as to why the penalty of Rs.250/- for each day delay shall not be imposed upon him for not giving the information within specified time. BDPO is also directed to deal the RTI application carefully in future according to RTI Act. A notice be issued to SPIO-cum-Sarpanch of village Tigrana under Section 19(8)(B) of the RTI Act for detriment caused to complainant/appellant.” 13. Meaning thereby, the SIC did not decide the real controversy between the parties, as to whether the complainant has deposited the requisite fees or not and slipped into deep legal error in this relevant behalf. What is not disputed here is that Section 6 of the Act postulates that a person, who desires to obtain any information under this Act, has to move an application in writing along with the prescribed fees and such applications are to be disposed of, in view of Section 7 of the Act. The manner of calculating the prescribed fees is depicted under Rules 3 to 5 of the Relevant Fees Rules. No cogent material is forthcoming on record to prove that the complainant has deposit the requisite fees in pursuance of the letter(Annexure P-3)written by the petitioner, but the SIC has speculatively assumed the deposit of the prescribed fees, without any legal basis and wrongly directed the petitioner to supply the information, without deposit of requisite fees, which is contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Relevant Fees Rules. The SIC was legally required to record a finding of fact in this relevant connection, which is totally lacking in the impugned order(Annexure P-13). 14. Moreover, the complainant in his written statement has nowhere stated that he deposited the amount with the petitioner, but very vaguely pleaded that he deposited the amount of Rs.12,000/- in the office of respondent No.3, but he(BDPO) could not deposit the amount in the office of respondent No.2(DDPO) so, later on, the amount was returned to him. That means, as per own showing of the complainant, he did not deposit the amount with the petitioner-SPIO at any Civil Writ Petition No.5246 of 2009 6 point of time, but the SIC has illegally presumed the deposit of requisite fees. All these vital aspect of the matter have been just ignored by the SIC with impunity. 15. Not only that, the writ petition came up for hearing before a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.) on 23.02.2010 and the following order was passed:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in terms of order dated 01.04.2009, the petitioner is ready to supply the copies of the documents/record applied for, however, the respondent No.4 has not deposited the requisite amount of Rs.18040/- with the petitioner. The said averment has been controverted by the learned counsel for respondent No.4 who has stated that in fact it is the petitioner who is not accepting the amount. Let respondent No.4 bring a Demand Draft in the sum of Rs.18040/- in favour of the petitioner on the next date of hearing. Adjourned to 12.03.2010.” 16. It is not a matter of dispute that the complainant did not bring the draft of the requisite fees till today, nor any cogent explanation is forthcoming on record in this relevant behalf. In this manner, it remains an unfolded mystery that how the SIC has directed the petitioner to supply the information, without asking the complainant to deposit the amount of requisite fees, which would naturally is contrary to Section 6 of the Act and Relevant Fees Rules and would cause loss to the Exchequer of the Gram Panchayat. 17. Thus, the impugned order(Annexure P-13) is non-speaking, which lacks application of mind. Such Appellate Authority ought to have discussed the material on record and was legally required to indicate the valid reasons, for arriving at a correct conclusion, in order to decide the real controversy between the parties, in the right perspective. It is now well-settled principle of law that every action of such authority must be informed by reasons. The order must be fair, clear, reasonable and in the interest of fair play. Every order must be confined and structured by the rational and relevant material on record, because the valuable rights of the parties are involved. Civil Writ Petition No.5246 of 2009 7 18. Exhibiting the importance of passing speaking and reasoned order, the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank V. Jagdish Sharan Varshney and others (2009) 4 Supreme Court Cases 240 has held(para 8) as under:- “The purpose of disclosure of reasons, as held by a Constitution Bench of this Court in S.N.Mukherjee V. Union of India, is that people must have confidence in the judicial or quasi-judicial authorities. Unless reasons are disclosed, how can a person know whether the authority has applied its mind or not? Also, giving of reasons minimizes the chances of arbitrariness. Hence, it is an essential requirement of the rule of law that some reasons, at least in brief, must be disclosed in a judicial or quasi- judicial order, even if it is an order of affirmation.” 19. Thus, seen from any angle, to my mind, the impugned order (Annexure P-13) cannot legally be sustained and deserves to be set aside in the obtaining circumstances of the case. It would be in the interest and justice would be sub-served, if the matter is remitted back to the SIC, for its fresh decision. 20. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of subsequent hearing of the appeal, the instant writ petition is accepted. The impugned order(Annexure P-13) is hereby set aside. The case is remitted back to the SIC(respondent No.1), for deciding the matter afresh, in view of the aforesaid observations and in accordance with law. 21. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the SIC(respondent No.1) on 27.07.2011 for further proceedings. 22. Needless to mention here that, nothing recorded hereinabove would reflect, in any manner, on the merits of the case, as the same has been so observed for a limited purpose of deciding the present controversy only. May 27, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No Civil Writ Petition No.5246 of 2009 8