Ramesh Kumar v. Parminder Singh

1. This is a writ petition which is directed against the order dated.18.04.2016, passed by the Central Information Commission (in short 'CIC'). By virtue of the impugned order the CIC has imposed a penalty of Rs.25,000/- on the petitioner.

2. The defence of the petitioner was noticed by the Court in the order dated 19.9.2016, when notice was issued.in the writ petition. For the sake of convenience, paragraph 2 of the said oi*der which encapsulates the defence ofthe petitioner is extracted herein after. "It is contended that the notices sent by the CIC were received by the petitioner after the date fixedfi)r the same. It is contended that the notice dated 10.11.2015fixing the date of 27.11.2015 was received in the office of the District Magistrate (West) on 28.11.2015 and the same was forwarded to the petitioner and was received by the petitioner on 05.12.2015. It is contended that in view of the same, the petitioner could not appear on 27.11.2015. It is further contended that the notice dated 01.01.2016 was received in the office of the District Magistrate on 08.01.2016 but was forwarded and received by the petitioner on 14.01.2016 after the date of12.01.2016fixed by the said notice. It is contended W.P. 8238/2016 Page 1 of[4] 2018:DHC:8849 that the information sought for by the respondent did not pertain to thepetitioner and the request wasforwarded to the concerned Deputy Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation. It is contended that there is no willful delay on thepart ofthepetitioner infurnishing the information. "

3. Despite notice having been issued, there is no appearance on behalf ofthe respondent.

4. The record shows that the respondent had filed an application under the Right to InformationAct, 2005 (in short 'RTI Act') seeking information with regard to a demolition drive carried out on 30.04.2014 vis-a-vis unauthorized construction in Bandar Wali Khui, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi. 4.[1] Theapplicationfiledby the respondent is dated 02.05.2014.

5. The petitioner claims that since the information sought was not available with his Department, it was forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner (West) MCD, Karol Bagh Zone on 13.05.2014. 5.[1] The respondent, being aggrieved, on account of requisite information not being supplied, proceeded to file a complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act with the CIC. 5.[2] The complaint was filed, it appears, With the CIC on 26.07.2014.

6. The CIC, consequently, issued a notice to the petitioner on ' 13.03.2015 to show cause as to why penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act ought not to be imposed upon him. 6.[1] It appears that thereafter, the CIC, issued show cause notices on 10.11.2015 and 01.01.2016., 7. As noted above, these show cause notices were received by the petitioner after the date of appearance fixed by the CIC. The CIC, it appears, was nof made aware of this fact which led to the passing of the impugned order dated 18.04.2016. W.P. 8238/2016 Page 2 of[4] 7.[1] The petitioner, it appears, tried to make amends by having the District Magistrate (West) submit a representation to the CIC on his behalf for waiving the penalty imposed vide order dated 18.04.2016. 7.[2] The CIC, however, vide order dated 02.06.2016 dismissed the representation.

8. Mr. Amar Singh, who appears for the petitioner, says that the petitioner was the CPIO of the concerned Department only between January, 2013 to March, 2015. Furthermore, Mr. Singh says that the notices dated 10.11.2015 and 01.01.2016 issued by the CIC were received by the petitioner after the date of hearing fixed by the CIC in that behalf 8.[1] The record shows that insofar as the notice dated 10.11.2015 was concerned, the hearing was fixed for 27.11.2015, whereas the CPIO of the, concerned Department received the notice on 02.12.2015. Likewise, insofar as the notice dated 01.01.2016 was concerned, the date fixed for •hearing was 12.01.2016, whereas the notice was received by the CPIO of the concerned Department on 14.01.2016.

9. On being queried as to why the petitioner did not move the CIC for recall of the order dated 13.03.2015, when he was very much in position as the CPIO of the concerned Departmeht^Whe -coiinsel for the petitioner was unable to give me a satisfactoryreply in that behalf

10. Clearly, the petitioner has been remiss in not approaching the CIC for requisite relief Having said so, it appears that the petitioner had taken requisite action of transferring the application to the concernedDepartment for information being ftjrnished to the respondent, with due expedition. On the other hand, the CIC, it appears, was attempting to enforce the writ of his office. To my mind, the petitioner ought to have approached the CIC on his own and not waited for a representation being made on his behalf by the District Magistrate.

11. However, having regard to the overall circumstances, I am of the W.P. 8238/2016 Page 3 of[4] view that the imposition of penalty was harsh and in a sense disproportionate to the infraction committed by the petitioner. That being said,the petitioner is put to noticethat such infraction should not happenin the future. The senior most officer in the Department will render requisite advice to the petitioner. The order dated 18.04.2016 is consequently set aside.

12. The Registry will despatch a copy of this order to the Secretary, Department ofFood and Supplies. The Secretary, Department of Food and Supplies will ensure that the petitioner is duly counselled by his senior officer.

13. The writ petition is disposed ofin the aforesaid terms.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J APRIL 16,2018 SRwt