Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1771 (HP)

Dinesh Kumar v. State Information Commission

2015-12-03

RAJIV SHARMA, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The petitioner herein had under Annexure P-1 on the subject detailed therein concerted to elicit information from the Public Information Officer-cum-Tehsildar, Amb, District Una. Under Annexure P-4, the Tehsildar-cum-Public Information Officer, Amb purveyed to the petitioner herein the information as concerted to be elicited under Annexure P-1 from him by the petitioner herein. The petitioner herein standing aggrieved by the factum of Annexure P-4 purveying to him incomplete information qua the subject comprised in Annexure P-1 took to prefer an appeal therefrom on 7.11.2013 before the State Information Commission, Himachal Pradesh. The latter, however under Annexure P-5 transferred the appeal preferred before it by the petitioner herein to the 1st Appellate Authority-cum-Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Amb, District Una. On the 1st Appellate Authority-cum-Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Amb being hence seized of the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein against Annexure P-4, whereupon the latter stood aggrieved by its purveying to him incomplete information qua the subject comprised in Annexure P-1, proceeded to under Annexure P-6 direct respondent No.4 herein, who stood impleaded as respondent before it, to purvey to the petitioner herein within 7 days the complete information as sought by the latter on the subject constituted in Annexure P-1. Since under Annexure P-6, the 1st Appellate Authority had not imposed any costs upon respondent No.4, who stood impleaded as a respondent before it, for the delay, if any, in his purveying to the petitioner herein the complete information, rather his having omitted to impose costs upon respondent No.4 herein on the score of the petitioner herein having disclosed before it qua his waiving imposition of costs upon respondent No.4 herein for the delay, if any, as stood occurred in the purveying of complete information to the petitioner on the subject embodied in Annexure P-1, which occurrence of a ground in Annexure P-6 for Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Amb not imposing costs upon respondent No.4 herein stood contested by the petitioner herein of its being bereft of veracity besides false. The petitioner herein, hence standing aggrieved by the occurrence in Annexure P-6 authored by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Amb of the factum of a disclosure by the petitioner herein before the latter of his having waived imposition of costs upon respondent No.4 arising from delay, if any, as stood occurred in the belated purveying of incomplete information to him. The petitioner herein, hence standing aggrieved by the occurrence in Annexure P-6 authored by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Amb of the factum of a disclosure by the petitioner herein before the latter of his having waived imposition of costs upon respondent No.4 arising from delay, if any, as stood occurred in the belated purveying of incomplete information to him. In sequel, he was led to institute an appeal before the State Information Commission, Himachal Pradesh. The latter under Annexure P-12 disposed of the appeal with an imposition of a penalty upon Ramesh Chand, Senior Assistant in the office of Tehsildar, Amb @ Rs.250/- for a delay of 21 days, which it concluded to have occurred in the delayed purveying of information to the petitioner herein by respondent No.4 herein. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure P-12 and prays for its being quashed and set aside. The petitioner also prays for respondents No.3 and 4 being penalized for the delay of 107 days as stands occurred since 6.8.2013 upto 17.12.2013, whereat in sequel to renditions of the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Amb, comprised in Annexure P-6, the complete information by respondent No.4 stood purveyed to the petitioner herein. The petitioner herein though has concerted to impeach the legality of the findings recorded by the State Information Commission, Himachal Pradesh in Annexure P-12 qua Ramesh Chand, Senior Assistant in the office of Tehsildar Amb being responsible for the delay as stood occurred in the purveying of information to the petitioner herein by respondent No.4 herein, rather the said responsibility being fastenable upon respondent No.4 herein especially in face of respondent No.4 herein being the Principal Information Officer, the liability for the occurrence of any delay in the purveying of information to him was hence fastenable upon him. However, the aforesaid ground as agitated before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein is bereft of any legal succor inasmuch as with a perusal of paragraph 3 of Annexure P-12 unraveling the factum of Ramesh Chand, Senior Assistant having admitted his lapse of his inadvertently marking Annexure P-1 to Field Kanungo Chururu Ram, besides concomitantly the said admission of Ramesh Chand, Senior Assistant of his having inadvertently marked Annexure P-1 to Field Kanungo, Chururu Ram having aroused the delay in the purveying of information to the petitioner herein rendered him to be solitarily responsible for it besides imposition of costs upon him by the State Information Commission, Himachal Pradesh in Annexure P-12 standing unvitiated. Resultantly, there is no strength in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner herein of any liability for delay in the purveying of the information to the petitioner being fastenable upon respondent No.4 herein nor is there any vigour in his contention of costs being hence imposable upon respondent No.4 herein. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner herein has concerted to canvass qua the impugned rendition of the State Information Commission, Himachal Pradesh, comprised in Annexure P-12 being infirm constituted in the fact of its having erroneously computed the delay as stood occurred in the purveying of information to the petitioner herein by respondent No.4, whereas the delay as stood occurred in its purveying was computable from 6.8.2013, whereat Annexure P-1 stood instituted before the Public Information Officer concerned upto 17.12.2013, whereat the information embodied in Annexure P-1 stood supplied to him. However, the aforesaid contention has no force nor any merit as: (1) the computation of the period of delay in the manner as done by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein untenably takes within its ambit the period since 12.9.2013 whereupon under Annexure P-4 the information as embodied in Annexure P-1 stood purveyed to him upto 17.12.2013, whereupon under Annexure P-6 the complete information as embodied in Annexure P-1 stood purveyed to him by respondent No.4 herein, especially when the period since 12.9.2013 uptill 17.12.2013 stood consumed in the processing of and rendition of an adjudication under Annexure P-6 by Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Amb upon an appeal of the petitioner herein preferred before the State Information Commission against Annexure P-4 on its standing transferred under Annexure P-5 to the former by the latter. The time consumed in the rendition of an adjudication by the competent authority constituted under the Right to Information Act upon the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein against Annexure P-4 obviously cannot stand included in the reckoning of the period of delay in the purveying of complete information to the petitioner herein. If the said time consumed since the institution of an appeal by the petitioner herein against Annexure P-4 till the rendition of an adjudication thereupon by the competent authority constituted under the Right to Information Act stands also reckoned to have aroused the delay in purveying of complete information to the petitioner herein, besides if it stands included in the reckoning of the aforesaid period of delay, it would tantamount to fastening an untenable liability upon the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Amb, even when he was enjoined by law to exhaust all procedures before proceeding to render an adjudication on the appeal of the petitioner. Apart there-from, if any responsibility for any delay on the part of the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) in rendering an adjudication upon the appeal preferred before it by the petitioner herein stands fastened upon him, it would only sequel its abuse by a cantankerous litigant for availing imposition of costs even upon the adjudicatory authority constituted under the Right to Information Act. Any vindication of the aforesaid endeavour on the part of a cantankerous litigant warranting imposition of costs upon the adjudicatory authority constituted under the Right to Information Act would preclude it from diligently discharging its public duties besides would render it vulnerable to onslaughts by ill advised litigants. Moreover, it would also sequel the consequence of the adjudicatory authority constituted under the Right to Information Act to merely for obviating delays short-circuiting procedures which would beget the natural consequence of gross injustice. 3. Dehors the above, even when the petitioner attributes to the respondent No.4 herein of the latter having purveyed to him incomplete information on 12.9.2013, which complete information stood belatedly purveyed to him on 17.12.2013, nonetheless it is not apparent from the annexures appended to the writ petition qua the incompleteness gripping the information purveyed to him by respondent No.4 under Annexure P-4 or its being not within the scope or domain of the subject embodied in Annexure P-1 whereof information was concerted to be elicited by the petitioner herein from respondent No.4 herein. The incompleteness hence with which Annexure P-4 was gripped with per se appears to have been conjured subsequently by the petitioner herein, arising from his legal adroitness to detect lacunas or shortcomings in Annexure P-4 besides arising from the factum of the subject embodied in Annexure P-1 whereupon information was desired by the petitioner herein from the Public Information Officer, Amb, being not precisely worded for eliciting from the latter the precise information with exactitude, which infirmity, however was subsequently concerted to be cured by the petitioner herein in his appeal preferred before the State Information Commission, Himachal Pradesh, which stood transferred for adjudication under Annexure P-5 to the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Amb. Even the petitioner herein has not in the grounds of appeal constituted in the appeal preferred by him portrayed therein with clarity the incompleteness with which Annexure P-4 stood gripped. It appears that for shortcomings in Annexure P-1 qua the narrations on the subject qua which information was sought by the petitioner herein from Tehsildar, Amb, whereupon information was concerted to be purveyed to him by the Public Information Officer-cum-Tehsildar, Amb, hence, sequelled the purveying to him of the purported incomplete information by the concerned under Annexure P-4. Consequently, for the aforesaid omissions on the part of the petitioner herein, he cannot also contend of there being any delay on the part of respondent No.4 herein to belatedly purvey to him complete information qua the subject constituted in Annexure P-1. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition merits dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. No costs.