Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1208 (KER)

J. Umesh Kumar v. State of Kerala

2025-05-19

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN

body2025
JUDGMENT : 1. The writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P11 order passed by the State Information Commission, Kerala (for short 'the Commission') whereby the petitioner was imposed with a penalty of Rs.3,000/- under section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter 'the RTI Act' for short) for failure to furnish information to the applicant within the time specified under section 7(1) of the RTI Act. 2. The petitioner, while working as Circle Inspector of Police, Ranni Police Station, was designated as Public Information Officer under the RTI Act. The 5 th respondent made Ext.P1 application dated 22.04.2014 under the RTI Act seeking nine items of information. In reply to Ext.P1, the petitioner gave Ext.P2 on 20.05.2014. As regards the information 7, 8 and 9, the 5 th respondent was required to furnish the receipt of payment of fee of Rs.6/- in the treasury. On receiving Ext.P2, the 5 th respondent paid Rs.6/- in the government treasury, Ranni and intimated the same to the petitioner vide Ext.P3 letter dated 21.05.2014. On receiving Ext.P3, the petitioner searched for the documents sought for in Ext.P1 application. However, the documents could not be traced as they were misplaced due to the shifting of the police station to the new building. Therefore, the petitioner issued Ext.P4 letter to the 5 th respondent informing that the documents are misplaced and requested for time to furnish the same. The petitioner also informed that if the 5 th respondent is not satisfied with the reply, she can prefer an appeal before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruvalla. In the meantime, the petitioner was transferred from Ranni Police Station. The 5 th respondent filed an appeal before the Dy.SP Thiruvalla. The petitioner's successor in office Sri. Rajappan found out the documents as per the initiative of the petitioner within 85 days of the application and furnished the same to the 5 th respondent through the office of the appellate authority without any additional payment. However, after receiving the said documents, the 5 th respondent preferred Ext.P5 complaint to the Commission under section 18(1) of the RTI Act on 24.01.2015. In Ext.P5, it is stated that the petitioner wilfully delayed furnishing the information and is liable to be punished under section 20(1) and (2) of the RTI Act. To Ext.P5, Sri. However, after receiving the said documents, the 5 th respondent preferred Ext.P5 complaint to the Commission under section 18(1) of the RTI Act on 24.01.2015. In Ext.P5, it is stated that the petitioner wilfully delayed furnishing the information and is liable to be punished under section 20(1) and (2) of the RTI Act. To Ext.P5, Sri. Rajappan, the successor in office, filed Ext.P6 statement before the Commission stating that the documents sought for were misplaced and the delay was not willful. 3. The Commission therefore observed that non-furnishing of documents after asking the 5 th respondent to pay Rs.6/- in the treasury and after remitting the said amount is not justifiable and further actions have to be taken against the petitioner. Accordingly, by Ext.P7, the Commission sought for explanation from the petitioner. The petitioner submitted Ext.P10 explanation stating that the petitioner asked the 5 th respondent to remit Rs.6/- towards the fees for the copy of the documents on the belief that the documents sought for are available in the record room. However, the same could not be traced when the treasury receipt was produced. The petitioner sought for time to furnish the documents and the documents were traced out from the old record room and the same were furnished to the 5 th respondent by the petitioner's successor in office. The petitioner stated that there was no willful default in furnishing information to the 5 th respondent. 4. The Commission, by Ext.P11 order, observed that without ensuring the availability of the documents sought for, the petitioner ought not have informed the 5 th respondent that the documents would be furnished on remittance of fee of Rs.6/- in the treasury. When the remittance was made, it is not proper for an officer to inform the applicant that the documents are misplaced. Since there was delay in disposal of request for information within the time stipulated under section 7(1), the petitioner is liable for a penalty of Rs.25,000/- under section 20(1) and (2) of the RTI Act. However, taking a lenient view, an amount of Rs.3,000/- was imposed on the petitioner. Ext.P11 is challenged in this writ petition. 5. Heard Smt. Tissy Rose K. Cherian, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. M. Ajay, the learned standing counsel for the Commission and the learned Government Pleader. 6. However, taking a lenient view, an amount of Rs.3,000/- was imposed on the petitioner. Ext.P11 is challenged in this writ petition. 5. Heard Smt. Tissy Rose K. Cherian, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. M. Ajay, the learned standing counsel for the Commission and the learned Government Pleader. 6. It is the contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was under the bona fide impression that the documents sought for by the 5 th respondent are available in the record room of the Police station and therefore the 5 th respondent was directed to remit the fee for furnishing the copies of the documents. However, when receipt of remittance of fee in the treasury was produced, the documents could not be traced as the same were misplaced due to shifting of the police station to the new building. The petitioner by Ext.P4 sought for time to furnish the documents. In the meantime, the petitioner was transferred and his successor in office traced out the documents and furnished the same to the 5 th respondent. It was in the said circumstances the delay occurred in furnishing the information. However, the Commission entered a prima facie finding against the petitioner in Ext.P7 without hearing the petitioner and in spite of Ext.P10 explanation, the Commission found that there was failure on the part of the petitioner in furnishing information. 7. In Ext.P11, the Commission found that the petitioner ought not to have asked the 5 th respondent to remit the fee for furnishing the documents sought in Ext.P1 without ensuring the availability of the documents. The Commission observed that it is not proper for an officer in the rank of the petitioner to inform the applicant who had remitted the fee for the documents that the documents are misplaced. Section 20 of the RTI Act provides for penalties. Under section 20(1), the Commission can impose penalty if the State Public Information Officer has, without reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under section 7(1) or mala fidely 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 information. In this case, the Commission has found that the petitioner did not furnish the information within the time provided under section 7(1) and therefore the petitioner is liable for penalty under section 20(1). There is a delay of 85 days in furnishing the information. Under section 20(1), the Commission can impose a penalty of Rs.250/- (rupees two fifty) each day till the information is furnished subject to the maximum of Rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand) 8. The conduct of the petitioner in asking the 5 th respondent to make remittance of fees for furnishing the information sought for without ensuring that the documents are available shows that he has not acted diligently. I, therefore, fully endorse the view taken by the Commission. The Commission has taken a lenient view and imposed only Rs.3,000/- as penalty. Ext.P11 order does not suffer from any error of law or fact warranting interference by this Court. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.