Kishore Kumar Sharma, aged about 66 years, S/O Late R.P. Thakur, R/O Giridih, P.O v. 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Madhuban Kumar, S/o Sri Kumar Anil Bihari, R/o Bhind Durga
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 446 of 2024 ---- Kishore Kumar Sharma, aged about 66 years, S/O Late R.P. Thakur, R/O Giridih, P.O. & P.S. –Giridih, District-Giridih and present resident at 3/A, Shanti Niketan Tower, Phase-1, PO. & PS-Dhanbad, District-Dhanbad … … Appellant/Writ Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Madhuban Kumar, S/o Sri Kumar Anil Bihari, R/o Bhind Durga Mandir, P.O. & P.S.-Giridih, District-Giridih. 3.State Information Commission, State of Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. Information Commissioner, State … … Respondents/Respondents ------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI ------ For the Appellant For the State : Mr. Arbind Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, AC to AG Order No. 04 : Dated 28th August, 2024 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, ACJ: -------- Prayer: 1. The instant intra-court appeal, under clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against order/judgment dated 25.06.2024 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1955 of 2016, whereby and whereunder the order dated 18.02.2016 passed by the Information Commissioner, Jharkhand State Information Commission, Ranchi in Appeal Case No.1399 of 2014 by which penalty of Rs.25,000/- has been imposed upon the petitioner to be deposited in five equal amounts in District Treasury, Giridih and recommendation has been made for initiation of - 1 - disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner, has been refused to be interfered with. Factual Matrix: 2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, reads as under: 3. The writ petitioner-appellant is the Public Information Officer-cum-District Welfare Officer, Giridih. The appellant alleged to have provided the information as sought for by the respondent no. 2 [information seeker] vide Memo No.947 dated 21.08.2015. The respondent no. 2 [information seeker] raised the objection before the Commissioner, Ranchi that the information supplied by the petitioner-appellant was not satisfactory. The writ petitioner-appellant again supplied the information to the respondent no. 2 [information seeker], upon which again objection was raised by the respondent no. 2 [information seeker]. The writ petitioner-appellant was issued a show cause by the State Information Commissioner, Ranchi and was asked to furnish reply by the next date of hearing. 4. It is case of the writ petitioner-appellant that without giving opportunity to the petitioner, the Commissioner, Ranchi passed the order dated 18.02.2016 in the Appeal Case No.1399 of 2014, by which penalty of Rs.25,000/- has been imposed upon the petitioner to be deposited in five - 2 - equal amounts in District Treasury, Giridih and recommendation has been made for initiation of disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner. 5. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Information Commissioner, Jharkhand State Information Commission, Ranchi, the writ petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 1955 of 2016, which was dismissed, which is the subject matter of present intra-court appeal. 6. It is evident from the factual aspect involved in the present case that the writ petitioner-appellant while discharging the duty as Public Information Officer by virtue of holding the post of District Welfare Officer, Giridih, the complainant/information seeker, the respondent no. 2 herein, made an application seeking information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 before him. The required information since was not furnished to him, the matter travelled up-to the second appellate stage invoking the provision as contained under Section 19(3) of the Act, 2005 before the State Information Commission. After calling upon the opposite party i.e., the writ petitioner-appellant [Public Information Officer], the matter was heard. 7. The Commission, after taking into consideration the submission advanced by the information seeker that the - 3 - entire information has not been provided to the information seeker and objection raised by him has not been taken care of and further the affidavit, as produced on behalf of Public Information Officer is tampered and further during course of hearing of appeal, it was found by the Commission that wrong affidavit has been provided by the Public Information Officer to the respondent no. 2 for hiding correct information, as such the Public Information Officer is trying to misled the Commission, passed impugned order on 18.02.2016, by which, penalty of Rs.25,000/- has been imposed upon the petitioner to be deposited in five equal amounts in District Treasury, Giridih and recommendation has been made for initiation of departmental proceeding against the petitioner. 8. Being aggrieved, the writ petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 1955 of 2016. The learned Single Judge taking note of the fact that in the proceeding before the second appellate stage on 19.12.2014, 23.01.2015, 08.06.2015 and 25.08.2015, though the Chief Information Commissioner cautioned the petitioner that if the petitioner will not provide correct information then appropriate order would be passed against him under Section 20(1) and 20(2) of the Act, 2005 but the petitioner since neither filed show cause nor provided the information, it led the State Information Commissioner to pass impugned order - 4 - dated 18.02.2016, has refused to interfere with the impugned order by dismissing the writ petition. Hence, the present intra-court appeal.
Legal Reasoning
the following propositions has been established at paragraph no.21 which reads as under: “(1) Certiorari will be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction, as when an inferior Court or Tribunal acts without jurisdiction or in excess of it, or fails to exercise it. (2) Writ of certiorari will also be issued when the Court or Tribunal acts illegally in the exercise of its undoubted jurisdiction, as when it decides without giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard, or violates the principles of natural justice. (3) The Court issuing a writ of certiorari acts in exercise of a supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction. One consequence of this is that the Court will not review findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal even if they be erroneous. This is on the principle that a Court which has jurisdiction over a subject-matter has jurisdiction to decide wrong as well as right, and when the Legislature does not choose to confer a right of appeal against that decision, it would be defeating its purpose and policy, if a superior Court were to rehear the case on the evidence and substitute its own findings in certiorari.” - 23 - 48. In Sawarn Singh and Anr. vs. State of Punjab and Ors., (1976) 2 SCC 868 their Lordships, while discussing the power of writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorari, has been pleased to hold at paragraph nos.12 and 13 as under: “12. Before dealing with the contentions canvassed, it will be useful to notice the general principles indicating the limits of the jurisdiction of the certiorari jurisdiction can be exercised only for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals. A writ of certiorari can be issued only in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction which is different from appellate jurisdiction. The Court exercising special jurisdiction under Article 226 is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. As was pointed out by this Court in Syed Yakoob’s case (supra) 13. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by an inferior tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued only if in recording such a finding, the tribunal has acted on evidence which is legally inadmissible, or has refused to admit admissible evidence, or if the finding is not supported by any evidence at all, because in such cases the error amounts to an error of law. The writ jurisdiction extends only to cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals in excess of their jurisdiction or as a result of their refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in them or they act illegally or improperly in the exercise of their jurisdiction causing grave miscarriage of justice.” 49. In Heinz India (P) Ltd. and Anr. vs. State of U.P. and Ors., (2012) 5 SCC 443 their Lordships have been pleased to hold at paragraph nos.66 and 67 as under: “66. That the court dealing with the exercise of power of judicial review does not substitute its judgment for that of the legislature or executive or their agents as to matters within the province of - 24 - either, and that the court does not supplant “the feel of the expert” by its own review, is also fairly well settled by the decisions of this Court. In all such cases judicial examination is confined to finding out whether the findings of fact have a reasonable basis on evidence and whether such findings are consistent with the laws of the land. 67. In Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. v. State of Saurashtra this Court held that decision of a tribunal on a question of fact which it has jurisdiction to determine is not liable to be questioned in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution unless it is shown to be totally unsupported by any evidence. To the same effect is the view taken by this Court in Thansingh Nathmal case where this Court held that the High Court does not generally determine questions which require an elaborate examination of evidence to establish the right to enforce for which the writ is claimed.” 50. In the case of West Bengal Central School Service Commission & Others Vs. Abdul Halim & Others reported in (2019) 18 SCC 39, their Lordships have been pleased to hold at paragraph no. 30 that the power of the judicial review must be exercised by the Court after determining that the impugned order is vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record and the same has been established by a process of reasoning. 51. For ready reference, paragraph 30 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted as under:- “30. In exercise of its power of judicial review, the Court is to see whether the decision impugned is vitiated by an apparent error of law. The test to determine whether a decision is vitiated by error apparent on the face of the record is whether the error is self-evident on the fact of the record or whether the error requires examination or argument to establish it. If an error has to be established by a process - 25 - of reasoning, on points where there may reasonably be two opinions, it cannot be said to be an error on the fact of the record, as held by this Court in Satyanarayan Vs. Mallikarjuna reported in AIR 1960 SC 137. If the provision of a statutory rule is reasonably capable of two or more constructions and one construction has been adopted, the decision would not be open to interference by the writ Court. It is only an obvious misinterpretation of a relevant statutory provision, or ignorance or disregard thereof, or a decision founded on reasons which are clearly wrong in law, which can be corrected by the writ Court by issuance of writ of Certiorari.” 52. The power of judicial review has been dealt with by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforementioned judgments, wherein such power can be exercised, if the order impugned is challenged under the Article 226 of Constitution of India, appears to be an error on the face of record. 53. This Court, therefore, is of the view based upon the aforesaid reason that it is not a case where the power of judicial review is to be exercised, since, there is no error apparent on the face of record. 54. The learned Single Judge, taking into consideration, these facts into consideration, and recording the finding that even in spite of repeated orders passed by the Commission, neither due information was furnished nor reply to show cause was filed by the Public Information Officer, has refused to interfere with the impugned order passed by the State - 26 - Information Commission, which cannot be faulted with and as such requires no interference by this Court. 55. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed. 56. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands
Arguments
Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant: 9. Mr. Arbind Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge on the ground that the order imposing penalty of Rs.25,000/- upon the petitioner to be deposited in five equal amounts in District Treasury, Giridih in view of provision as contained under Section 20(1) of the Act, 2005 cannot be said to be just and proper since the writ petitioner-appellant [Public Information Officer] provided all the information to the respondent no. 2 [information seeker] twice but on the one or other ground the respondent no. 2 has stated that information provided to him is not satisfactory. But the aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned Single Judge, hence order of penalty as imposed under section 20 (1) of the Act, 2005 cannot be said to be just and proper. 10. It has further been submitted that the State Information Commissioner without appreciating the content of the affidavit filed by the petitioner came to the conclusion that the declaration given therein is false but aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by learned - 5 - Single Judge while passing the impugned order, hence, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge requires interference by this Court. Submission made on behalf of respondent-State: 11. Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, learned A.C. to Advocate General appears for the State, who has submitted that herein the State is not a contesting party rather the State is a formal party, therefore, he is nothing to say in the matter. 12. This Court, after going through the impugned order and documents available on record, is of the view that there is no need to notice to respondent No. 3, the State Information Commission, who is contesting respondent and as such the State Information Commission has not been called upon reason being that the order which has been passed by the authorities dated 18.02.2016 has been challenged by seeking a writ of certiorari and basic principle for issuance of writ of certiorari is that is there is error on the face of the order, then only the writ of certiorari can be issued. Analysis 13. This Court has heard learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the pleading made in the affidavit and finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. - 6 - 14. The writ petitioner admittedly was posted at Giridih as District Welfare Officer, who in addition thereto was discharging the duty of Public Information Officer. The Public Information Officer-cum-District Welfare Officer, Giridih while discharging duty, an application dated 11.07.2012 was filed by the information seeks [respondent no. 2] under the Right to Information Act, 2005 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 2005’] seeking information in view of provision as contained under Section 5 of the Act, 2005. 15. But when the information, as sought for, was not provided within the stipulated period of time, the respondent no. 2-the information seeker preferred first appeal before the Deputy Commissioner-cum-First Appellate Authority on 06.09.2012. 16. However, when no due information was provided to him, he preferred second appeal under Section 19(3) of the Act, 2005 before the State Information Commission on 17.10.2012, which was registered as Appeal No. 1399 of 2014 with a prayer for direction upon the Public Information Officer to provide information to him. 17. The State Information Commission on 19.12.2014 issued notice to the Public Information Commission-cum- District Welfare Officer. - 7 - 18. When the appeal was taken up on 23.01.2015, the Public Information Officer appeared before the Commission and produced a copy of information sent to the information seeker i.e., respondent no. 2 on 22.01.2015, upon which, the State Information Commission adjourned the matter and directed the Information Seeker to file objection, if he is not satisfied to the information provided to him by the Public Information Officer, the appellant herein. 19. However, the State Information Commission also directed the Public Information Officer to file reply to the show cause as to why action be not taken against him under Section 20(1)(2) of the Act, 2005 for not providing due information to the Information Seeker within stipulated period of time. 20. When the matter was taken up on 08.06.2015, the Information Seeker appeared and submitted that though he has sent the objection to the Public Information Officer but rectified information has not been provided to him. On that date, the Public Information Officer neither appeared nor had filed reply to show cause, as such the matter was adjourned to be listed on 25.08.2015 and the Public Information Officer was directed to provide rectified information to the information seeker. - 8 - 21. On 25.08.2015, when the matter was taken up, the Commission again directed the Public Information Officer to provide information in terms of the application of information seeker within 15 days and the matter was adjourned with an observation that if the direction of the Commission will not be complied with by the next date of hearing, the Commission will be compelled to pass order of penalty under Section 20(1) of the Act, 2005 as well as recommended for initiation of disciplinary proceeding against him under section 20(2) of the Act, 2005. Thereafter, the matter was taken up to 18.02.2016. 22. On 18.02.2016, respondent no. 2, the information seeker, submitted before the Commission that the entire information has not been provided to him and his objection is as it is. 23. It has further been submitted before the Commission that the affidavit, as produced on behalf of Public Information Officer, has been tampered and during the course of hearing of appeal, it was found by the Commission that wrong affidavit was provided by the Public Information Officer to respondent no. 2 for hiding the correct information and by such act he is trying to mislead the Commission. 24. The Commission, taking into consideration the pleading of the parties, passed the impugned order dated 18.02.2016 - 9 - in Appeal Case No.1399 of 2014 by which penalty of Rs.25,000/- has been imposed upon the petitioner to be deposited in five equal amounts in District Treasury, Giridih and recommendation has been made for initiation of departmental proceeding against the petitioner. 25. Against the order passed by the Commission, the Public Information Officer [writ petitioner] approached to this Court by filing writ petition but the learned writ Court taking note of the fact that in the proceeding before the second appellate stage on 19.12.2014, 23.01.2015, 08.06.2015 and 25.08.2015, though the Chief Information Commissioner cautioned the petitioner that if the petitioner will not provide correct information then appropriate order would be passed against him under Section 20(1) and 20(2) of the Act, 2005 but the petitioner since neither filed show cause not provided the information, as such passed the impugned order, by dismissing the writ petition, which is the subject matter of present intra-court appeal. 26. This Court, before entering into the legality and propriety of the impugned order, needs to refer herein the very object of the Act, 2005. The very basic object of the Right to Information Act is to empower the citizens, promote transparency and accountability in the working of the - 10 - Government, contain corruption, and make our democracy work for the people in real sense. 27. As per Section 7 of the Act, 2005, due information is to be provided to the information seeker by the Public Information Officer within thirty days. And if the information is not supplied by such Public Information Officer within the stipulated period of time, the appeal is to be filed before the first appellate authority under Section 19 (1) of the Act, 2005. 28. Further, if the information seeker is still aggrieved, he may prefer second appeal within 90 days against the decision under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act, 2005 before the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be. 29. In the case at hand, the respondent no. 2 i.e., the information seeker filed an application on 11.07.2012 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 2005’] before the Public Information Officer for providing information in view of provision as contained under Section 5 of the Act, 2005. But when the information, as sought for, was not provided within the stipulated period of time, as such the respondent no. 2-the information seeker preferred first appeal before the Deputy Commissioner-cum-First Appellate Authority on 06.09.2012. - 11 - 30. Again when the desired information was not provided to him, he preferred second appeal under Section 19(3) of the Act, 2005 before the State Information Commission on 17.10.2012, which was registered as Appeal No. 1399 of 2014. 31. The State Information Commission on 19.12.2014 issued notice to the Public Information Commission-cum- District Welfare Officer. In the proceeding on 23.01.2015, 08.06.2015 and 25.08.2015, though the Chief Information Commissioner cautioned the petitioner [Public Information Officer] that if the he will not provide correct information then appropriate order would be passed against him under Section 20(1) and 20(2) of the Act, 2005, but the petitioner since neither filed show cause not provided the information, as such passed the impugned order vide order dated 18.02.2016, by which penalty of Rs.25,000/- has been imposed upon the petitioner to be deposited in five equal amounts in District Treasury, Giridih and recommendation has been made for initiation of departmental proceeding against the petitioner. 32. The provision as contained in Section 7 of the Act, 2005 is very specific that if any information is not provided to the information seeker within a period of 30 days from the date of submission of application seeking information before the - 12 - Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, the information seeker may prefer first appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act, 2005. 33. Further, a second appeal against the decision under sub-section (1) of Section 19 i.e., against the order passed in first appeal shall lie within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received, with the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, herein the State Information Commission. 34. Meaning thereby if the information has not been furnished within the period of 30 days, it entitles the information seeker to prefer first appeal and against the order so passed at first appellate stage, the information seeker may prefer second appeal within a period of 90 days, if he is dissatisfied with the order passed in first appeal. 35. Further, if the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time - 13 - specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely 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 fifty 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. 36. For ready reference, the provision as contained in Sections 7, 19 and 20 of the Act, 2005 are quoted as under: “7. Disposal of request. (1) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a request under section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9: Provided that where the information sought for concerns the life or liberty of a person, the same shall be provided within forty- eight hours of the receipt of the request. (2) If the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, fails to give decision on the request for information within the period specified under sub-section (1), the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be deemed to have refused the request. (3) Where a decision is taken to provide the information on payment of any further fee representing the cost of providing the - 14 - information, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall send an intimation to the person making the request, giving-- (a) the details of further fees representing the cost of providing the information as determined by him, together with the calculations made to arrive at the amount in accordance with fee prescribed under sub-section (1), requesting him to deposit that fees, and the period intervening between the despatch of the said intimation and payment of fees shall be excluded for the purpose of calculating the period of thirty days referred to in that sub-section; (b) information concerning his or her right with respect to review the decision as to the amount of fees charged or the form of access provided, including the particulars of the appellate authority, time limit, process and any other forms. (4) Where access to the record or a part thereof is required to be provided under this Act and the person to whom access is to be provided is sensorily disabled, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall provide assistance to enable access to the information, including providing such assistance as may be appropriate for the inspection. (5) Where access to information is to be provided in the printed or in any electronic format, the applicant shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (6), pay such fee as may be prescribed: Provided that the fee prescribed under sub-section (1) of section 6 and sub-sections (1) and (5) of section 7 shall be reasonable and no such fee shall be charged from the persons who are of below poverty line as may be determined by the appropriate Government. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (5), the person making request for the information shall be provided the information free of charge where a public authority fails to comply with the time limits specified in sub-section (1). (7) Before taking any decision under sub-section (1), the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as - 15 - the case may be, shall take into consideration the representation made by a third party under section 11. (8) Where a request has been rejected under sub-section (1), the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall communicate to the person making the request,-- (i) the reasons for such rejection; (ii) the period within which an appeal against such rejection may be preferred; and (iii) the particulars of the appellate authority. (9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. 19. Appeal.—(1) Any person who, does not receive a decision within the time specified in sub-section (1) or clause (a) of sub- section (3) of section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may within thirty days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of such a decision prefer an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer as the case may be, in each public authority: Provided that such officer may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of thirty days if he or she is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. (2) Where an appeal is preferred against an order made by a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under section 11 to disclose third party information, the appeal by the concerned third party shall be made within thirty days from the date of the order. (3) A second appeal against the decision under sub-section (1) shall lie within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received, with the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission: - 16 - Provided that the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. (4) If the decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, against which an appeal is preferred relates to information of a third party, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to that third party. (5) In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request. (6) An appeal under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be disposed of within thirty days of the receipt of the appeal or within such extended period not exceeding a total of forty-five days from the date of filing thereof as the case may be, for reasons to be recorded in writing. (7) The decision of the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall be binding. (8) In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to— (a) require the public authority to take any such steps as may be necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of this Act, including— (i) by providing access to information, if so requested, in a particular form; (ii) by appointing a Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be; (iii) by publishing certain information or categories of information; (iv) by making necessary changes to its practices in relation to the maintenance, management and destruction of records; (v) by enhancing the provision of training on the right to information for its officials; - 17 - (vi) by providing it with an annual report in compliance with clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 4; (b) require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered; (c) impose any of the penalties provided under this Act; (d) reject the application. (9) The Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall give notice of its decision, including any right of appeal, to the complainant and the public authority. (10) The Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall decide the appeal in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed. 20. Penalties.—(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely 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 fumishing the information, it shall 16 impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty 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 - 18 - Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. (2) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause and persistently, failed to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely 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 recommend for disciplinary action against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under the service rules applicable to him. 37. Adverting to the factual apsect of the present case, the admitted position herein is that the appellant while working as Public Information Officer did not provide information to the information seeker [the respondent no. 2 herein] within statutory period of thirty days. 38. It further appears from the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge that ample opportunity was granted by the State Information Commission cautioned the petitioner that if the petitioner will not provide correct information then appropriate order would be passed against him under Section 20(1) and 20(2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. 39. It is further admitted fact neither the petitioner submitted reply to the show cause issued by the State - 19 - Information Commission nor provided, the due information, as sought for by the information seeker. 40. It is, thus, evident that even in spite of ample opportunity having been granted for furnishing information, though information was furnished by the Public Information but not within stipulated period of 30 days and further the information so furnished was not proper. Therefore, the State Information Commission issued show cause to the petitioner to reply as to why action be not taken against him under Section 20(1)and Section (2) of the Act, 2005 for not providing information to the Information Seeker within stipulated period of time. 41. The Commission, after taking into consideration the fact that entire information has not been provided to the information seeker and objection raised by the information seeker has not been taken care of and further wrong/tampered affidavit has been provided by the Public Information Officer to the respondent no. 2 for hiding correct information, passed the impugned order dated 18.02.2016, imposing penalty of Rs.25,000/- and made recommendation for initiation of departmental proceeding against the petitioner. 42. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the Public Information Officer while discharging his duty has not acted - 20 - as per the mandate of the statute, therefore, the State Information Commission has passed the impugned order imposing the penalty of Rs.25,000/- and made recommendation for initiation of departmental proceeding against the petitioner, which has been sought to be quashed and set aside by way of issuance of writ of certiorari. 43. The principle for issuance of writ of certiorari is well settled and it can only be issued if there is apparent error on the face of record. 44. The reference in this regard be made be made to the judgment rendered in the case of T.C. Basappa Vs. T. Nagappa reported in (1955) 1 SCR 250, their Lordship hold that the patent error in a decision can be corrected by writ of certiorari, when it is manifested by the error apparent on the face of the proceedings. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is quoted hereunder:- 10. ……….. An error in the decision or determination itself may also be amenable to a writ of certiorari but it must be a manifest error apparent on the fact of the proceedings, e.g. when it is based on clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions of law. In other words, it is a patent error which can be corrected by certiorari but not a mere wrong decision. ……….. 45. Further reference in this regard be made to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Syed Yakoob vs. Radhakrishnan & Others, A.I.R. 1964 SC 477, wherein the scope of judicial review as conferred to - 21 - the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in showing interference with the award passed by the adjudicator has been dealt with. 46. For ready reference, paragraph No.7 of the said judgment is being reproduced as under: “The question about the limits of the jurisdiction of High Courts in issuing a writ of certiorari under Art. 226 has been frequently considered by this Court and the true legal position in that behalf is no longer in doubt. A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals : these are cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals without jurisdiction, or is in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction. A writ can similarly be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or Tribunal Acts illegally or improperly, as for instance, it decides a question without giving an opportunity to be heard to the party affected by the order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposed to principles of natural justice. There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases, however, we must always bear in mind that a finding - 22 - of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ Court. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Art. 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised.” 47. In Hari Vishnu Kamath vs. Ahmad Ishaque and Ors., AIR 1955 Supreme Court 233, the Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to the character and scope of the writ of certiorari and the conditions under which it can be issued,
Decision
disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, A.C.J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) Alankar/ A.F.R - 27 -