IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT

CHANDIGARH
C.W.P.No.15850 of 2010
Date of Dec!o"#$ 2%.02.2012
Lal Singh Tiwana ....Petitioner(s)
vs.
State of Punjab and others ....Respondent(s)
***
CORA&#$ HON'B(E &R.JU)TICE AUGU)TINE GEORGE &A)IH
***
Present:- r.!alwinder Singh" #dvo$ate"
for the petitioner.
r.%.&.#rora" #dvo$ate"
for respondent 'o.(.
***
AUGU)TINE GEORGE &A)IH* J. +O,a-.
Petitioner has approa$hed this &ourt pra)ing for *uashing of
order dated +(.,.-.+. (#nne/ure P-+) passed b) the Punjab State
0nfor1ation &o11ission vide whi$h penalt) of ` -2"...3- has been
i1posed upon the petitioner and order dated ++.4.-.+. (#nne/ure P-5)
$onfir1ing the earlier order dated +(.,.-.+..
&ounsel for the petitioner $ontends that the infor1ation sought
b) respondent 'o.( was through an appli$ation dated -5.+.-.+." as is
apparent fro1 the seal of the Postal 6epart1ent. Sin$e no infor1ation was
supplied to the petitioner" he preferred a $o1plaint on 2.5.-.+. in whi$h
noti$e was issued to the Publi$ 0nfor1ation 7ffi$er" Ludhiana
01prove1ent Trust for -4.(.-.+.. The sa1e" a$$ording to the petitioner"
was not re$eived and" therefore" no one had put in appearan$e on behalf of
C.W.P.No.15850 of 2010 $2$
the Publi$ 0nfor1ation 7ffi$er. Thereafter" noti$e was issued for +8.2.-.+.
with a dire$tion to the respondents to suppl) the infor1ation to the
$o1plainant before the ne/t date of hearing" failing whi$h the &o11ission
1a) ta9e a$tion against the Publi$ 0nfor1ation 7ffi$er under Se$tion -.(+)
of the Right to 0nfor1ation #$t" -..2 (hereinafter referred to as :the -..2
#$t:). 7n the date fi/ed" i.e. +8.2.-.+. again the infor1ation was not
supplied to the $o1plainant and the petitioner appeared before the
&o11ission and stated that he had re$entl) joined on ++.2.-.+. and the
infor1ation whi$h he had $olle$ted" whi$h was in$o1plete" has been
supplied to the $o1plainant. Thereafter" the $ase was adjourned to
+(.,.-.+. on whi$h date again the $o1plete infor1ation" as re*uired" was
not supplied to the $o1plainant" leading to the passing of the order
i1posing penalt) of ` -2"...3- upon the petitioner with a further dire$tion
to the Prin$ipal Se$retar)" Lo$al ;overn1ent" Punjab" to re$over the a1ount
fro1 the salar) of the petitioner and deposit the sa1e with the ;overn1ent
Treasur).
0n response to this order" petitioner filed a detailed affidavit
dated -,.<.-.+. putting-forth his $ontentions and e/plaining the dela) in
suppl)ing the infor1ation to the $o1plainant with a further pra)er that the
penalt) i1posed upon hi1 be waived off in the light of the e/planation. 7n
$onsidering the stand of the petitioner" State 0nfor1ation &o11ission vide
order dated ++.4.-.+. $onfir1ed the prior order dated +(.,.-.+. and
observed therein that the infor1ation as sought for b) the $o1plainant has
not been supplied. 0t is at this stage that the petitioner had approa$hed this
C.W.P.No.15850 of 2010 $/$
&ourt.
&ounsel $ontends that the i1position of penalt) of ` -2"...3- is
not in a$$ordan$e with the provisions as $ontained under the :-..2 #$t:.
The stand of the petitioner and the diffi$ult) whi$h was fa$ed b) hi1" as
proje$ted in his affidavit dated -,.<.-.+-." has not been appre$iated and
ta9en into $onsideration b) the State 0nfor1ation &o11ission while passing
order dated ++.4.-.+. and a$$ordingl) he pra)s that the writ petition 1a) be
allowed b) setting aside the order of penalt) i1posed vide order dated
+(.,.-.+. and as $onfir1ed vide order dated ++.4.-.+..
0 have $onsidered the sub1issions 1ade b) the $ounsel for the
part and with their assistan$e gone through the re$ords of the $ase.
=/planations whi$h have been put-forth b) the petitioner
through the affidavit dated -,.<.-.+. would not be enough to den) a person"
who is see9ing infor1ation within the ti1e stipulated under the #$t. The
pri1ar) $ontentions raised in the affidavit are the shortage of staff" joining
of the petitioner after the noti$e had been issued" the e/tension of ti1e for
registration of the plots b) the ;overn1ent whi$h led to the rush of
registration of plots b) the owners and essential duties of &ensus as per the
dire$tions of the =le$tion &o11ission. These are internal 1atters whi$h
have to be dealt with and ta9en $are of b) the #d1inistration and $annot be
ta9en as a ground or a defen$e for not suppl)ing the infor1ation within the
ti1e stipulated under the -..2 #$t itself. The provisions as $ontained
under the -..2 #$t have to be given effe$t to a$hieve the obje$tive of this
#$t whi$h are to bring transparen$) and a$$ountabilit) of publi$ offi$ials
C.W.P.No.15850 of 2010 $0$
and to establish the right of the $iti>en to have the infor1ation and these
e/$uses" if ta9en into $onsideration" the -..2 #$t itself will be rendered
ineffe$tive and the purpose with whi$h the Statute has been brought into
e/isten$e would be frustrated. Therefore" the reasons assigned for
not suppl)ing the infor1ation at an earl) date to the $o1plainant $annot be
a$$epted. %owever" the fa$t that the petitioner joined on ++.2.-.+." whi$h
is not disputed" the liabilit) prior thereto $annot be i1posed upon hi1.
;iving benefit of this period i.e. prior to ++.2.-.+." when provisions under
Se$tion -.(+) of the -..2 #$t are invo9ed" the liabilit) of the petitioner
$o1es to ` +4"<2.3-.
0n view of the above" the writ petition is partl) allowed.
Penalt) is redu$ed to ` +4"<2.3- fro1 ` -2"...3- as initiall) ordered. The
orders dated +(.,.-.+. and ++.4.-.+. are 1odified a$$ordingl).
Fe1,2a,3 2%* 2012 + AUGU)TINE GEORGE &A)IH .
4oo"a5 JUDGE