The High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 23-Feb-2024 15:40:43 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 2255 OF 2013 …. Padmashree Das Petitioner Ms. Babita Kumari Pattnaik, Advocate -versus- State Information Commissioner and others …. Opp. Parties Mr. Amiya Kumar Mishra, Additional Government Advocate (For Opp. Party No.2) Mr. Bijaya Kumar Dash, Advocate (For State Information Commissioner) CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 22.02.2024 6. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Order dated 20th December, 2012 (Annexure-7) passed by the Odisha Information Commission, Bhubaneswar (for brevity hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commission’) in Second Appeal Nos. 238 of 2010 is under challenge in this writ petition, whereby penalty of Rs.25,000/- has been imposed on the Petitioner for causing delay of more than hundred days in supplying information to the Opposite Party No.3. The Petitioner also assails the order dated 14th November, 2012 (Annexure-4), whereby the Commission directed to issue notice to her to show cause as to why penalty under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for brevity ‘the Act’) shall not be imposed on her. 3. Ms. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Opposite Party No.3 filed an application in Form-A of the Act to get certain information. The Petitioner being the PIO Page 1 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 23-Feb-2024 15:40:43 supplied the information available in the institution, namely, // 2 // Paradeep Port High School, Bhutumundai, Paradeep in the district of Jagatsinghpur. The information regarding resolution of the PTA committee and attendance position of teaching and non-teaching staff of the institution was supplied to the Opposite Party No.3. But, information regarding implementation of Mid- Day Meal Programme and details of collection of rent from the rented out portion of the asbestos-roofed vacant houses of the High School, could not be supplied as it was not readily available with the institution. But the said information was supplied to the Opposite Party No.3 subsequently. Assailing non-supply of the information, the Opposite party No.3 preferred First Appeal No.11 of 2010, which was disposed of on Office Order No.8260 dated 17th August, 2010 (Annexure-3) holding that the Opposite Party No.3, who sought for information did not remain present for hearing of the case. Hence, it was directed that the letter of the Public Information Commission (PIO) dated 16th February, 2010 should be communicated to the Opposite Party No.3. 4. Being aggrieved, the Opposite Party No.3 preferred Second Appeal No.238 of 2010, which was disposed of on 14th November, 2012 under Annexure-4 holding that there is initial delay in furnishing the information to the Opposite Party No.3 at the level of the Petitioner, who was the then PIO of the said High School. It is also held that the direction of the First Appellate Authority remained un-implemented. Hence, it was the Commission issued notice under Section 20 (1) of the Act asking the Petitioner to show cause as to why penalty for obstruction of supply of information should not be imposed on Page 2 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 23-Feb-2024 15:40:43 her. The Petitioner also submitted her reply on 20th December, // 3 // 2010 under Annexure-6. But, without considering the same in its proper perspective, a penalty of Rs.25,000/- was imposed on the Petitioner. Hence, this writ petition has been filed assailing the order under Annexures-4 and 7. 5. It is submitted by Ms. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the Petitioner that by the time the direction was issued in the Second Appeal, the Petitioner had already been transferred. She further submits that while imposing penalty under Annexure-7, the Commission did not record any finding as to how the Petitioner was guilty of obstructing supply of information. The show cause reply of the Petitioner was also not taken into consideration. As such, both the orders under Annexures-4 and 7 are liable to be set aside. 6. Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that since the Petitioner has challenged the order of the State Information Commission, the Inspector of Schools, Jagatsinghpur-Opposite Party No.2 has no role to play in the matter. He, however, submits that this Court considering the matter may pass appropriate order. 7. Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the State Information Commission submits that the Petitioner, who was the Ex-PIO was given ample opportunity to supply the information as sought for by Opposite Party No.3. But, she failed to do so in spite of repeated direction of the First Appellate Authority as well as the Commission. Hence, the Commission has committed no error in imposing penalty of Rs.25,000/- on her. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition. Page 3 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 23-Feb-2024 15:40:43 8. Although notice was issued to the Opposite Party No.3 // 4 // by Registered Post A.D. in the address given by him before the Commission, but neither the A.D. has returned nor anyone has entered appearance on his behalf. Hence, this Court treats the notice on Opposite Party No.3 to be sufficient in view of the provision under Order V Rule 9(5) CPC and proceeds with the matter. 9. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent from the record that the Petitioner was the Public Information Officer in Paradeep Port High School, Bhutumundai, Paradeep in the district of Jagatsinghpur when an application was made by the Opposite Party No.3 in form-A. She was transferred on 16th November, 2010 to Sanjay Gandhi Bidyapith, Paradeep Port Nuabazar, Paradeep in the district of Jagatsinghpur. The impugned order under Annexure-4 was passed on 14th November, 2012 directing the then PIO to make arrangement for inspection of the records by the Opposite Party No.3. Thus, the Petitioner has no role in implementing such direction, as she was transferred to another school by that date. It further appears that no specific finding has been recorded by the Commission under Annexure-4 as to why the Petitioner was held liable to file reply to the notice of show cause under Section 20(1) of the Act. It is only stated that there has been initial delay at the level of Ex-Headmaster-cum-PIO of the School in furnishing the information to the Appellants. It is further held that the direction of the First Appellate Authority was not complied with. Order of the First Appellate Authority was passed on 17th August, 2010 under Annexure-3. But the Petitioner was on leave during that period, i.e., from 16th August, Page 4 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 23-Feb-2024 15:40:43 2010 to 15th November, 2010. The said fact was never disputed. // 5 // Thus, during the relevant period she was not in-charge of the PIO of the institution. As such, the Petitioner has nothing to do for compliance of the order of the First Appellate Authority. 10. On perusal of the order under Annexure-7, it appears that there is no specific finding holding the Petitioner guilty of any non-compliance of order under the Act or creating obstruction in supplying information, to attract the provision under Section 20(1) of the Act. The show cause reply filed by the Petitioner under Annxure-6 was neither taken into consideration. However, it is observed that the Petitioner submitted her ignorance about the timeline prescribed under the Act. That itself cannot be a ground to impose penalty of Rs.25,000/-. 11. In view of the above, this Court holds the order under Annexure-7 to be unsustainable and sets aside the same. Order under Annexure-4 only relates to direction for issuance of notice to the Petitioner to show cause as to why penalty under Section 20(1) of the Act should not be imposed. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the order passed quashing the order under Annexre-7, no further order is required to be passed in respect of order under Annexure-4. 12. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. ms (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge Page 5 of 5