Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1644 (HP)

Sanjay Bhagwati v. Ved Parkash

2019-11-05

ANOOP CHITKARA, TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2019
JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. 1. Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Writ Court, whereby the petition filed by respondent No. 1 came to be allowed and a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- and compensation of Rs. 50,000/- have been imposed and ordered to be paid by the appellant and respondent No. 5 and action as per sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Right to Information Act has also been directed to be initiated against the appellant, the appellant has filed the instant Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this appeal are that respondent No. 1 filed an application before respondent No. 5 vide Annexure P-1 for supply of certain information. The same, in turn, was forwarded to the office of Block Development Officer, Dharamshala, being manned by the appellant on 30.03.2010. The Panchayat Sahayak, Gram Panchayat, Khanyara informed the office of the appellant that photocopies of the documents were being supplied to respondent No. 1/petitioner and the same were annexed with the letter dated 23.04.2010. Since, the documents sought for by the petitioner which were copies of applications dated 19.05.2006, 20.05.2006 and 16/17.05.2006 were not supplied to him, therefore, he submitted an application to the Block Development Officer, Dharamshala on 29.04.2010 stating therein that the information supplied was not acceptable to him and he also sought address of the next appellate authority. Thereafter, respondent No. 1/petitioner was informed vide letter dated 01.05.2010 that the information sought by him is also being supplied by annexing letter dated 30.04.2010 whereby the Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Khanyara informed the office of the appellant that the record of the Panchayat was verified, but the aforesaid letters dated 19.05.2006, 20.05.2006 and 16/16.05.2006 were not found in the record. 3. Being aggrieved by the incorrect and misleading information supplied to him, respondent No. 1/petitioner filed an appeal before the ADC-cum-Appellate Authority vide Annexure P-6 on 31.05.2006. It was specifically stated therein that the information supplied by the office of the appellant was not correct. The matter was examined by the SEBPO, Dharamshala and he submitted the copy of the reply of the Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Khanyara, a copy whereof also supplied to respondent No. 1/petitioner on 17.07.2010, on which date the case came to be closed. 4. The matter was examined by the SEBPO, Dharamshala and he submitted the copy of the reply of the Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Khanyara, a copy whereof also supplied to respondent No. 1/petitioner on 17.07.2010, on which date the case came to be closed. 4. The matter was un-successfully assailed before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kangra, Chief Information Commissioner and thereafter before the State Information Commissioner and ultimately before this Court in CWP No. 8794, wherein it was contended that since the appellant and the Prandhan, Gram Panchayat, Khanyara had supplied incorrect information, penalty was required to be imposed on them and in addition thereto action to be drawn against the officials for imparting wrong information. 5. The learned Writ Court allowed the petition by concluding that the appellant as also the Pradhan had not supplied correct information and imposed the penalty, compensation and ordered the inquiry, as aforesaid. 6. Aggrieved by the order, the appellant/Block Development Officer filed the instant appeal on the ground that the findings recorded by the learned Writ Court are contrary to record and, therefore, deserve to be set aside. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. 7. It is not in dispute that respondent No. 1 had asked for supply of documents dated 19.05.2006, 20.05.2006 and 16/17.05.2006 vide Annexure P-1, dated 10.03.2010. 8. It is also not in dispute that the incorrect information was supplied to the petitioner as per Annexure P-3, dated 23.04.2010 by the Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Khanyara through the appellant. He had been supplied the photo copies of the letter dated 23.04.2010, 21.04.2006 and 24.05.2009 and not the letters as referred to in Annexure P-1. It was then that respondent No. 1 brought to the notice of the appellant that the information supplied to him was not acceptable to him and had sought the address of the next appellate authority on 29.04.2010. 9. However, despite this the appellant did not bother to verify the facts and informed respondent No. 1 vide Annexure P-5 on 01.05.2010 that the information sought for by him was supplied to him and copy of letter dated 30.04.2010 was also annexed alongwith Annexure P-5. It was specifically stated in the letter dated 30.04.2010 by the Pradhan, Gram Panchayat that the letters dated 19.05.2006, 20.05.2006 and 16/17.05.2006 were not available in the record of the Gram Panchayat. It was specifically stated in the letter dated 30.04.2010 by the Pradhan, Gram Panchayat that the letters dated 19.05.2006, 20.05.2006 and 16/17.05.2006 were not available in the record of the Gram Panchayat. However, it would be noticed that in the subsequent letter produced by the Pradhan, Gram Panchayat on 13.07.2010 (when the proceedings were closed by the successor of the appellant) wherein it was stated that though he had received the letters dated 19.05.2006, 20.05.2006 and 16/17.05.2006, but he could not place the same on record of the Gram Panchayat and had misplaced the same. Meaning thereby, the letters did exist and were handed over to the Pradhan, yet no endeavour was made by the Pradhan, Gram Panchayat to trace out these letters and even the appellant without applying his mind and without bothering to see whether the information being sent by the Pradhan, Gram Panchayat was correct or not and was, therefore, equally guilty of having given a false information. 10. As rightly observed by the learned Writ Court that the Gram Panchayat is constituted under the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, it would fall within the ambit of the public authority and was required to maintain the record as per Section 4 of the Act. The documents which were required to be supplied to respondent No. 1 were required to be entered in the record and the subsequent plea of respondent No. 5 that he had misplaced the documents could not have been accepted. It was his duty to supply information to respondent No. 1 as per sub-section 5 of Section 5 of the Right to Information Act. The appellant should have ensured that correct information is supplied to respondent No. 1. 11. What is more surprisingly is that even after respondent No. 1 brought it to the notice of the appellant that correct information is not being supplied, he did not take any steps to look into the matter rather he simply forwarded another letter issued by the Pradhan, Gram Panchayat dated 30.04.2010 instead of checking the records of the Gram Panchayat. 12. Shri Adarsh K. Vashisht, Advocate, would argue that in the letter dated 13.07.2010 sent by the Pradhan to the then Block Development Officer, the appellant had been transferred and, therefore, no responsibility, much less penalty or compensation or inquiry could have been ordered against him. 13. 12. Shri Adarsh K. Vashisht, Advocate, would argue that in the letter dated 13.07.2010 sent by the Pradhan to the then Block Development Officer, the appellant had been transferred and, therefore, no responsibility, much less penalty or compensation or inquiry could have been ordered against him. 13. We find no merit in such contention because it has specifically come on record that incorrect, incomplete and misleading information had been supplied to respondent No. 1 and the information sought for by respondent No. 1 was duly available therein in the record of the Gram Panchayat and yet not supplied. 14. As a last ditch effort, Shri Adarsh K. Vashisht, Advocate, would argue that since there was no malafide intention on his part, therefore, no inquiry under sub-section 2 of Section 20 of the Act could have been ordered against the appellant. Even this contention is without substance. Section 20(2) of the Act reads as under:- "(2) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be has without any reasonable cause and persistently, failed to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall recommend for disciplinary action against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under the service rules applicable to him." 15. The penal provisions of Section 20 of the Act is to sensitise the public authority that they should act with all due alacrity and not hold up any information, which a person seeks to obtain. State of Punjab and Others vs. State Information Commissioner, Punjab and Another, 2010 SCC Online P&H 375. Even otherwise, Right to Information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. State of Punjab and Others vs. State Information Commissioner, Punjab and Another, 2010 SCC Online P&H 375. Even otherwise, Right to Information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of the RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of Section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497 . 16. Bearing in mind the laudable object of the Act mere inaction or laid back attitude on behalf of the appellant cannot exonerate him of his culpability because higher is the post, not only more but greater are the responsibilities. Even after being put to notice by the petitioner that the information supplied to him is incorrect, yet the appellant took no steps whatsoever to ensure that the true, correct and not incorrect, incomplete or misleading information is supplied to respondent No. 1. If a person refuses to act, then his intention is absolutely clear and is a sufficient indicator of his lack of bonafides. After all malafide is nothing sort of lack of bonafides or good faith. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion and for the reasons stated above, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their costs.