IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.1785 of 2008 Date of Decision: 28.07.2009 S.S.Johal Petitioner Versus State Information Commission, Punjab and others Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH Present: Mr.D.V.Sharma, Senior Advocate with Ms.Shivani Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.A.K.Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Punjab Mr.Sumit Goel, Advocate for respondent No.2 ….. Jasbir Singh, J.(Oral) Heard counsel for the parties. In this writ petition, primary grievance of the petitioner is against order dated 17.8.2007, vide which, an amount of Rs.25,000/- has been imposed upon him, by way of penalty, for not complying with the directions, issued by the State Information Commission. Further challenge is to the order dated 2.11.2007, dismissing his application to recall above said order. The petitioner, at the relevant time, was working as Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar. Respondent No.2 moved an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short the Act), for getting some information. Fee, more than the prescribed, was charged from Civil Writ Petition No.1785 of 2008 him. He moved a complaint before the State Information Commission and vide order dated 1.6.2007, the Public Information Officer and the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar were directed to come present before the State Information Commission to state reasons for over- charging, supplying wrong information and sending a complaint against respondent No.2 to the higher authorities. Petitioner failed to appear before the Commission on 25.6.2007. Before the date fixed for appearance, the petitioner was transferred from Jalandhar on 14.5.2007. On 25.6.2007, following order was passed by the State Information Commission regarding summoning of the petitioner and the case was adjourned to 13.7.2007:- “On the next date of hearing Shri S.S.Johal, the then Commissioner and Smt.Gurpreet Sapra, the then Public Information Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar should be present to give reply on the points raised in our order dated 1.6.2007 and explain why action should not be taken against them under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 for the delay in supplying of the information in question.” On that date also, the petitioner failed to appear and the matter was adjourned to 17.8.2007, on which date, the impugned order was passed. Relevant portion of which reads thus:- “However we take a serious view of the attitude of Shri S.S.Johal, IAS, former Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar and presently working as Additional Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Social Welfare in this case. A fine is imposed on him @ Rs.250/- per day w.e.f. 2 Civil Writ Petition No.1785 of 2008 1.6.2007 when the Commission’s order dated 1.6.2007 are not being obeyed by him. 2. A copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary to Government of Punjab, Chandigarh for recovering the amount of fine from the salary of the officer concerned @ Rs.25/- per day from 1.6.2007 till date subject to a maximum of Rs.25000/-, in two equal installments and deposit the same in the Government treasury under relevant Head. The Chief Secretary to Government of Punjab will ensure compliance of this order and report about the same by 15.10.2007.” When petitioner came to know about the order passed against him, he filed an application, stating therein that he was never served to put appearance before the Commission, as he was on leave from 2.7.2007 to 31.8.2007. Prayer was to recall the order dated 17.8.2007. His application was declined, stating that there is no provision in the Act, to review the order passed earlier. Hence, this writ petition. This Court feels that the State Information Commission was not justified in passing the order on 17.8.2007. There is nothing on record to show that at any time, the petitioner was served with a notice to appear before the Commission and explain his position. He was transferred from Jalandhar on 14.5.2007 and thereafter, remained on leave from 2.7.2007 to 31.8.2007. Otherwise also, it appears from the record that the Commission has taken serious note of the complaint sent by the petitioner against respondent No.2, to his superiors. This Court feels that if in a good faith, the petitioner may have sent a letter to supervising authority of respondent No.2, the State Information Commission was not expected to take a very serious note of that fact, as has been done in this case. So far as facts of the 3 Civil Writ Petition No.1785 of 2008 case are concerned, information demanded was supplied to respondent No.2, much before passing of the order dated 17.8.2007. In view of facts mentioned above, orders dated 17.8.2007 (P15) and 2.11.2007(P18) are set aside. The petitioner is directed to appear before the State Information Commission, which has passed the orders under challenge, on 18.8.2009. His explanation be considered sympathetically. 28.07.2009 (Jasbir Singh) gk Judge 4