IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 21504 of 2010 Date of Decision: 02.11.2011 Vishwanath Sharma ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr. Arun Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. R.D.Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma, Advocate, for respondents No. 4 and 5. **** SURYA KANT, J.(Oral) The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 27.10.2009 (Annexure P-7) whereby penal proceedings have been dropped against respondent No.4 by the State Information Commission, Haryana. 2. The controversy has arisen out of the proceedings initiated by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act seeking certified copies of (i) application dated 11.7.2000 alleged to have been moved by Smt. Vidya Devi wife of Babu Lal for purchasing a property from Municipal Council, Rewari, and (ii) site plan dated 11.7.2000 attached with the said application. CWP No. 21504 of 2010 [2] 3. The Municipal authorities refused to provide certified copies of these documents to the petitioner on the plea that the original record is not traceable. It further appears that due to delay in sending intimation to the petitioner, the State Information Commission initiated penal proceedings against the Public Information Officer cum Executive Officer of the Municipal Council, Rewari vide show cause notice dated 12.8.2009 but the same have been dropped after the defaulting official tendered unconditional apology for the delay in furnishing the information. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that no fault can be found with the discretion exercised by the State Information Commissioner. Once the officer in default has tendered unconditional apology and accepted by the statutory authority, no interference by a Writ Court is called for. 5. As regards the information to be supplied to the petitioner or the plea taken by the Municipal Council that the original record is not traceable it may be noticed here that the petitioner has filed a civil suit against the opposite party in relation to whom the documents were sought by him under the Right to Information Act. An alternate recourse for the petitioner could be to summon the original records of the municipality through the process of the Civil Court and to prove whatever he deserved. The important part of the issues is that the petitioner himself supplied photostat copies of the documents applied for by him to the Municipal Council, yet the Municipality failed to reconstruct its record or at least issue further copies thereof as the genuineness of those photocopies was never CWP No. 21504 of 2010 [3] disputed by it. Was it a clog to help the other party who was allegedly favoured by the Municipality? 6. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the Municipal Council, Rewari that after ascertaining the correctness of these photostat documents at its own level, if those photostat copies are found to be genuine, the record shall be reconstructed and it shall supply duly attested copies of the same to the petitioner to be used as public documents. The Director, Department of Local Bodies, Haryana is, however, directed to hold a fact finding enquiry as to whether the original records of the municipality have been misplaced deliberately with a view to help the beneficiary. In case, it is found that the non-availability of records is a motivated act, suitable disciplinary action shall be initiated against those who are responsible for such remiss. The petitioner shall also be entitled to costs of ` 5000/- for unnecessary harassment caused to him by the municipal authorities due to their sheer negligence and the said cost amount shall be recoverable from the Executive Officer of the municipality who has been unnecessarily pursuing these proceedings. The cost shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Dasti. 02.11.2011 (SURYA KANT) 'ravinder' JUDGE