The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) NO. 672 OF 2011 (An application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) Birendra Kumar Panda * * * * -versus- …. Petitioner State of Odisha and others …. Opp. Parties Advocates appeared:
Legal Reasoning
For Petitioner : Mr. Himanshu B. Dash, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. Bijaya Kumar Dash, Advocate (For State Information Commission) CORAM:
Decision
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA ---------------------------------------- Heard and disposed of on 09.04.2024 --------------------------------------- JUDGMENT 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Order dated 23rd September, 2010 (Annexure-4) passed by the Odisha Information Commission, Bhubaneswar in Complaint Case No.1534 of 2007 is under challenge in this writ petition, whereby a penalty of Rs.22,250/- has been imposed on the Petitioner for the delay in supplying information. 3. Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that admittedly, there was 89 days of delay in supplying the information. Delay in supplying the information occurred as Page 1 of 5 // 2 // there was mass transfer and posting of School Teachers for which large number of teachers and Sikhya Sahayaks had created unruly situation in the office premises of the Petitioner for a long period disturbing the entire office work. In such a situation, application for information under the R.T.I. Act could not be attended to. He further submits that during pendency of the complaint case, the Applicant, namely, Opposite Party No.3, vide his letter dated 4th February, 2010 intimated the Commission that information sought for has been supplied to him on 18th December, 2007. Hence, he has no complain against the present Petitioner. The said letter was received by the Commission. In spite of the same, penalty as aforesaid has been imposed. 3.1 Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that information could not be supplied to the Petitioner within the stipulated period due to the circumstances beyond the control of the Petitioner. He being the Public Information Officer made his best endeavour to supply the information after the situation brought to normalcy and provided the information to the Opposite Party No.3 vide Letter No.4804 dated 18th December, 2007. Receiving such information, the Applicant, namely, Opposite Party No.3, wrote to the Commission stating that he has no further grievance against the Petitioner. But, without taking the same into consideration, the impugned order under Annexure-7 has been passed. Hence, the same is liable to be set aside. Page 2 of 5 // 3 // 4. Mr. Dash, learned counsel appearing for the Odisha Information Commission-Opposite Party No.1 submits that admittedly there was a delay of 89 days in supplying the information. Although Annexure-4 was communicated to the Commission, but the Applicant-Opposite Party No.3, had not intimated the Commission to withdraw the complaint. As such, the Commission has committed no error in imposing the penalty on the Petitioner for causing delay in supplying the information. 5. None appears for the Applicant-Opposite Party No.3 at the time of call. 6. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that the Opposite Party No.3 had made an application for supply of information. Admittedly, there was a delay of 89 days in supplying the information. Cause of delay in supplying the information as described by the Petitioner was due to unrest made by Teachers and Sikhya Sahayaks in the office premises of the Petitioner for which the office work was seriously disrupted. The same is not disputed by any of the Opposite Parties. It is also stated that after the situation brought to normalcy, the information was supplied to the Opposite Party No.3 without any further delay. The Opposite Party No.3, namely, the information seeker, intimated the Commission vide his letter dated 4th February, 2010 (Annexure-4) that he has received the information on 18th December, 2007 and is satisfied about the information received. He further intimated that he has no complian against the Petitioner. Page 3 of 5 // 4 // 7. Section 20 of the R.T.I. Act, 2005 provides for imposing penalty. It envisages that 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 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. 8. In the instant case, the circumstances described by the Petitioner reveals that situation for not supplying the information was beyond the control of the Petitioner. As such, delay caused in providing information cannot be stated to be unreasonable, more particularly when the reason for delay in supplying the information assigned by the Petitioner was never denied. Further, the Opposite Party No.3, namely, information seeker, had intimated the Commission that he has received information 18th December, 2007 and is fully satisfied with the same. He further stated that he has no further complain against the Petitioner. Page 4 of 5 // 5 // 9. These material aspects though dealt with were not properly appreciated by the Commission. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order under Annexure- 7 is not sustainable. Accordingly, the same is set aside. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 9th April, 2024/bks Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BIJAY KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 10-Apr-2024 21:17:52 Page 5 of 5