Judgment · High Court

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CON8TITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asnihotri, J. Present: Shri Arvind Dubey, Advocate for the petitioner. Sfari Amn Sao, Govemment Advocate fortiie State. •^ ORDER(ORAD (Passed on 06th day of August, 2009)

Challenge in fhis petition is to the order dated 25 May, 2009 (Amiexure P/6) passed by the respondent No. 2 i.e. Chief Information Commissioner in complaint/Appeal No. 705/2008 wherein the Commission, on considering reply of the petitioner and the complaint of the applicant/respondent No. 3, canie to the conclusion that there was undue delay in supplying the mformation to tfae respondent No. 3. Tlie reason ofbeingthe father of the petitioner not well was not found to be justified. Thus, the petitioner was held guilty under provisions of section 20(1) of the Ri^it to Information Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act') and accordingly a sum of Rs. 2000/- as penalty was imposed on the petitioner. It was farther observed that some infomiation was not given to the applicant, the same should be made available imiiiediately without fee. A coftipensation of Rs. 500/- was also awarded to the respondent No. 3 under provisions of section 19(8^b) of the Act. ^^fe^—.-;»•*- :jopuns^spTOj<;pv9lftJO(CD(8)6I UOIP9S 'POJ%ns '°N S^M },u^oiidd^ sqi s^ j^dojd pim ^snf osp si oims ^ ^u^mupp jeqio jo ssoi AU^ JGJ lu^upidmoo sip guipsuodiuoo joj s^piAOjd pv ^jo (cl)(8)6I UOIP98 'uop^uuojui spidwooui popiAojd 'p^moouoo si £ ^UQpuodssj ^ o^ "/OOS 's<y[J° uoip?siiQduioo jo gmpj^M^ s^ rej sy pu^ pnfsi -/OOOZ 's^jo^^uedjo uoi^isodmi 'py 9i{ljo •jodojd •ojs^ (l)OS uoipQsjoMQiA'm 'snqjL 'X^pponpun ^u^puodssj sq^ ^q yi§nos uoi^mjojm w^ 'jsqpn^ "g 'o^ q^iM p^piAojd s^M g yiopuods^j ^qi o^ uoipiiuojm Q^idmoom pQpiAOjd s^q j^uopipd ^ ^p^y.impV •fr ^•^qA^m ^s^o ^ip, s^^oiyo HOI^I£EJOJU][ onqnj ^P^S ^lp JO J30T00 HOI^UUOJCII onqnj p4u^0 ^qi. iio oq ipqs Apii9g?}ip pim iiqmios^M p9p^ ^q pq^ guiAOjd jo u^pjnq ^ip i.^ ^il^ty p^piAoJj :mR{ uo p^sodiin si A^puod Xim Qjoj^q pj^q §upq jo ^ronpoddo c^q ACTU ^s^3 ^ 9][qeuo^BQj s^ ^oijjQ uoiyeuuojui oiiqnj s^g ^ jo ^oigo uoi^uuojui oiiqnj pjpi©3 ©ipys^ p^piAOj^ TS u^Ai§ sq ^qs :s^dm pu^snoqi ^AIJ-AIII^MI p980Xi3 iou ^pqs ^puod qons jo ^uniom^ p^oi w^ ^A^Moq os bp9qsiaity: si uoipimojin jo poAposj si uoi^oiidd^ \y^ ^p qo^ s^odm ^yg pu^ 'uopBimojin pojpunq OM^JO ^pu^d ^osodun {pqs ^ ^qi guiqsiujn^ ui jQim^m Xu^ m peptu^sqo jo ^sonb^ oip jo p^fqns 9ip S^A^ ipTi^ ITOTPIIUOJIII poAloj^sop jo uoi^imojm gmp^jsim jo opidiuoom 'P^JJOOIH U9AiS ^gOTMOiD[ jo Hop^auojoi joj ^s^nb^j ^lp p9TU3p Applppm JO ^ UOlpQS JO (l) UOlpQS -qns j^pun p^gp^ds 9iiip oip inipiM uoi^unojin poqsiimg: pu s^q jo uoipuuq^OT jc^ uoi^oiidcfe im ^Apo0j o} ps»sty9j ^sriBO ^iqCTios^j Am ^noq^iM 's^q 'oq ^ui ss^o ^ s^ 'jQOigo HOI^UHOJUI oiiqnj ^i^g QI^ jo J93100 uoi^uuojiq ^nqnj IM1XI9Q @q^ ^qiuoroido ^ipjo si p^dd^ jo ^in^duioo Aim Smppsip jo ^iup ^ip p ^q ^m ^s^o ^ SB 'uoissTimnoo uop^ayojiq o^g ^ip jo UOTSSTIITIHOQ UOl^UUOJUI pJ^USQ 9Vy 8J8I^ (l) - S3pIBU3d *OZ» :j©punw sp^^j py ^WJ0 (l)0£UOTP^S •opjo^ p^pTOdd^ syisuinoop pws sSmp^Q\d 'jQuoi^pdgq^ jq^ gui.m^ddfe psunoo p^am^ pjeoq ^A^q i oi^ p&smsd <r'19.(8) In its decision, the Central Infomiation Commission or State Infbmiation Commission, as the case may be, has the power to,- a/ require the public authority ta t^ any sudh step as may be necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of this Act, includmg- (i) (ii) xxx (iii) xxx (hQ xxx (v) (vi) xxx require tfae public authority to compensate tiie complainant fbr any loss or other detrinient suffered; b. C. XXX d. xxx XXX XXX xxx"

The petitioner was given a show cause notice dated 6th Febmary, 2009 (Annexure P/4) which was replied by the petitioner on 6th March, 2009 (Annexure P/5). After considering the reply of the petitioner, tiie impugned order dated 25 May, 2009 was passed. The reason for delay in fumishing the infomiation to the respondent No. 3 was also not found to be justifiable. Thus, I do not find any irregularity or illegality m the order passed by the respondent No. 2 in imposition of a compensation ofRs. 500/- under the provisions of section 19(8^b) and penalty of Rs. 2000/- under section 20(1) of the Act. The impugned order dated 25 May, 2009 (Aimexure P/6) is just, proper and needs no interfbrence.