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: 07-Aug-2024 18:47:34 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 12755 OF 2011 Dr. Anup Kumar Mallick …. Petitioner Mr. Susanta Kumar Mishra, Advocate -versus- State Information Commission, Bhubaneswar and another …. Opp. Parties
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Raj Bhusan Dash, Advocate (For Information Commission) CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 06.08.2024 5. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Perused the kind minutes of Hon’ble the Chief Justice at Flag-X assigning the matter to this Bench. 3. The Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the order dated 27th September, 2010 (Annexure-8) passed in Complaint Case No.350 of 2009, whereby the Odisha Information Commission, Bhubaneswar (for brevity ‘the Commission’) imposed a penalty of Rs.7,750/- on the Petitioner for causing thirty-one days delay in supplying the information to Opposite Party No.2 within the time specified under Section 7(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for brevity ‘the Act’). 4. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that Opposite Party No.2 sought for an information by filing an application in Form-A before the Petitioner, who was the then Public Information Officer (PIO). The Opposite Party No.2 intended to receive the information in person. But, she did not Page 1 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 07-Aug-2024 18:47:34 supply her contact number. Thus, the Opposite Party No.2 could not intimate to receive the information in time. It is further submitted that due to pressure of official work, the Petitioner was not remaining in his seat, as he was required to visit different places for spot verification/inspection. When he detected that the information is ready, giving it top priority, the Petitioner communicated the Opposite Party No.2 vide his letter No.811 dated 23rd March, 2009 to receive the information. The information was also received by the Opposite Party No.2 on 1st April, 2009. Thus, the delay in supplying the information, if any, was not intentional and no fault can be attributed to the Petitioner for delay in supplying the information to Opposite Party No.2. The Commission without taking note of the same, held that there was a delay of thirty-one days in supplying the information and imposed a penalty of Rs.7,750/- on the Petitioner in exercise of power under Section 20(1) of the Act. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned order under Annexure-8. 5. Mr. Dash, learned counsel appearing for the Commission-Opposite Party No.1 submits that since the Opposite Party No.2 was not supplied with the information within the stipulated period, she made a complaint under Section 18 of the Act. Section 18 of the Act does not require any mens rea of the PIO to be established for causing delay in supplying the information to maintain a complaint. Once the information is not supplied within the statutory period of thirty days, as provided under Section 7(1) of the Act, the PIO becomes liable to pay the penalty under Section 20(1) of the Act. Before Page 2 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 07-Aug-2024 18:47:34 imposition of penalty, notice (Annexure-6) was also issued to the Petitioner to have his say in the matter as required under Section 20(1) of the Act. Thus, the Commission has committed no error in passing the impugned order and imposing penalty of Rs.7,750/- on the Petitioner. It is further submitted that the impugned order under Annexure-8 is reasoned and well discussed one. Thus, it warrants no interference. 6. Taking note of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the Opposite Party No.2 sought for information by filing an application in Form-A on 19th January, 2009. Thus Petitioner requested the Opposite Party No.2 to deposit requisite fee of Rs.22/- vide his letter No.246 dated 22nd January, 2009. Opposite Party No.2 deposited the same before the PIO on 30th January, 2009 vide receipt No.0834. Opposite Party No.2 had disclosed in her petition to receive the information in person. It is alleged by the Petitioner that no contact number was given in Form-A application, for which he could not intimate the Opposite Party No.2 to receive the information. 7. On perusal of the copy of the Form-A application as at Annexure-9, it appears that the Opposite Party No.2 has stated her permanent address in the said application. She has also stated in the application that she desired to receive the information in person. It appears from the record that the Petitioner has never intimated Opposite Party No.2 to give her contact number to convey the readiness of the information. The same is also not required to be obtained in law. Page 3 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 07-Aug-2024 18:47:34 8. It further appears that the Petitioner vide his letter No.811 dated 23rd March, 2009 communicated the information to Opposite Party No.2, which was received by her on 1st April, 2009. It is not disputed that the Opposite Party No.2 has not received the information. But, the allegation is that it was received by her beyond the statutory period. As rightly submitted by Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the Commission that the proof of mens rea for delay in supplying the information is not required to be established to entertain a complaint under Section 18 of the Act. Once there is a delay in supplying the information, the PIO becomes liable to pay the penalty under Section 20(1) of the Act. Further it appears that before imposition of penalty, notice under Annexure-6 was issued to the Petitioner to have his say in the matter as required under Section 20(1) of the Act. 9. In that view of the matter, this Court feels that the Commission has committed no error in imposing a penalty of Rs.7,750/- on the Petitioner for admitted delay in supplying the information. 10. Thus, the writ petition being devoid of any merit stands dismissed. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. Page 4 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack STACK: Date: 07-Aug-2024 18:47:34 ERROR: syntaxerror OFFENDING COMMAND: ----nostringval---- 53 0 3