1 HIGH CGURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR " WRIT PETITION (227) No. 165 of2009 PETITIONER : Dr. Praveen Kumar Rai S/o Shri Hari Shankar Rai, aged aboui 33 years, R/o Bus Stand, Amarpur Road: Pendra: Disit‘ Bilaspur (C.G‘) RESPONDENTS :1. Chhattisgarh State Informaiion Commission, ihrough Connnissioner, Shatikar Nagar, Raipur (CG) VERSUS 2. Joint DirectOr, Directorate, Horticulture Department, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Public Information Offieer, Director, Horticulture Department, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT ‘PETIHON UNBER ART} LE 227 OF TEE CONSTI UHON OF INDEA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri. J. Present: Shri M.K.Sinha, Advocate for the petitioner. Shi‘i Amrito Das, Panei Lawyer for the State/respondents 2 and 3. ORDER gORAL) (Passed on 06 day of Augact, 2009) 1. Chaiienge in this petition is to the order dated 12m Septemher, 2008, (Annexare P/l) paSsed 'ey the respondent No. 1 in Appeal No. 256I2008. whereby the respondent No. 3 was directed to nay a sum of Rs. 500/— as . compensation to the petitioner under the provisions of section 19(8)(‘n) of the Right to Infonnation Act, 2905 (for shott ‘the Act”). 2. Learned oounsei appearing for the petitioner submits that under section 20(1} ofthe Act. a penalty is to be imposed at the rate of Rs. 25GI- each day till application is received orinformation is tinnished. According to Shri Sinha, the requisrte information sought by the petitioner was not received within the prescribed time and there was a de1ay in submitting the requisite information and as such: the maximum penaity of Rs. V25,000/— ought to have been imposed on the respondent No. 3. Shri Das, iearned counsel appeating for ”die respondents 2 and 3 submits that there was a settlement between the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 before the appeiiate authority i.e. the respondent No. 2. The delay in hnnishing requisite information has aiready been compromised at the b) \ appellate stage and as such, the respondent No. 1, a3er having considered the reply dated 1st of September, 2008, of the Information Officer, has rightly come to the eonclusion that there was a reasonable delay and the Commissioner was of the opinion that there was reasonable cause for delay in submitting the information sought by the petitioner. 4. 1 have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. Section 20(1) ofthe Act reads as under: “20. Penalties — (1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Infotmation Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Infonnation Onicer or the State Public Information Omeer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, retiised to receive an application for information or has not himished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malatidely 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 titty 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 Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.” 6. The penalty of Rs. 250/- each day is dependent on certain conditions, firstly, the Commissioner should he of the opinion that the delay was without any reasonable cause or malafrdely the request for information was denied or misleading information or destroyed information was given to the applicant. Even otherwise, in the case on hand, penalty has not been imposed but a compensation under section l9(8)(b) of the Act, has been ordered. Section l9(8)(b) ofthc Act, reads as under: I “19(8) In its decision, the Central information Commission or Staie Infomlatim Commissimi, as the case may be, has the power to,— (a) require the public authority to take any such step as may be necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of this Act, meluding — (b) require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered; (c) m xxx (d) xxx xxx” ‘ l In the present case, the Commissioner, it apnears has come to the conclusion that there was a reasonable cause for delay in furnishing the information as is evident from the conduct of the applicant before the appellate authority. Thus, the contention of Shri Sinha that the respondent No. 1 ought to have imposed penalty of Rs. 250/— each day till the information is furnished, and in total a sum of Rs. 25:000/— should be paid as compensation, is not tenable. The petitioner has failed to establish that the ingredients as aforestated in section 20(1) of the Act has been fulfilled. It appears that the necessary ingredient, i.e. in opinion formation of the Commissioner on the basis of facts available, the respondent No. l had found reasonable cause for delay and as such statutory provisions of imposition of Rs. 25M pert dayito the maximum of Rs. 25000/- was rightly not exercised. l do not find any irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the respondent No. l in imposition of a compensation of Rs. 500/— under the provisions of section l9(8)(b) of the Act. The irnpugied order dated 12th September, 2008 (Annexure P/l) is just, proper and needs no interference. ' In View Ofthe foregoing: thiS petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/— x Satish K. Agnihotri Judge (i) XXX XXX xxx (ii) xxx (iii) “K xxx xxx (iv) XXX xxx XXX (V) XXX xxx xxx (Vi) Xxx xxx