ISTM Logo Here

Gandhiji Image here
Thu, Aug 22, 2019
Hindi Website Button Here
RTI >> Judgments >> High Court >> Penalty
Supreme Court(Penalty)/ CIC(Penalty)
S.No. HIGH COURT CASE DATE OF JUDGMENT JUDGMENT
31 W.P.(C) 11271/2009
(296.44 kB) pdf icon
01 Jun, 2012 Registrar of Companies & Ors vs Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr

The legislature has cautiously provided that only in case of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed.
32 C.W.P. No. 10806 of 2011. [O&M]
(102.12 kB) pdf icon
02 Dec, 2011 Gurcharan Singh Petitioner Versus State Information Commission, Punjab & Ors.

Information Sought:
Information sought regarding certain works allegedly manipulated by the petitioner who was the Junior Engineer concerned at the relevant time.

CPIO's Reply:
A part of the information was supplied to the 4th respondent vide letter No. 1843 dated 10.11.2010 but the remaining information could be supplied to him on 03.03.2011 only.

CIC's Decision:
The State Information Commission in its order held the CPIO guilty of unexplained delay in supplying the information and a penalty of Rs.250/- per day from 10.11.2010 to 03.03.2011 has been imposed on him.

Decision by High Court:
Hon’ble High Court find that the State Information Commission has nowhere held that the petitioner withheld any information deliberately or wilfully and Non-furnishing of satisfactory explanation would not ipso-facto mean that the petitioner withheld the information with a motive or malafidely. That being so, the harsh penalty imposed is uncalled for and the same is set aside but with a stern warning to the petitioner to be careful in future and ensure that as and when an application is received under the Act, he shall be obligated to act upon promptly and in any case within the stipulated period.
33 S.C.A. No. 4962 of 2011
(285.63 kB) pdf icon
25 Apr, 2011 Jadhav Pradeep Chandrakant vs State of Gujarat

Information Sought:
(a) Direct the respondent no.1 & 2 authorities to provide the requisite information to the petitioner as prayed in the prescribed format dated 17/07/2010;
(b) Direct the respondent no.3 authority to exercise his powers for penal provisions for failure to provide information to the petitioner, as per law, against the respondent no.1 and 2 as both the authorities have totally ignored the order dated 04/09/2010 passed by respondent no.3

CPIO's Reply:
The CPIO failed to provide the information.

Decision by High Court:
High Court directed the SIC to look into the matter under Section 20(1) for penalty.
34 LPA 782/2010
(215.38 kB) pdf icon
06 Jan, 2011 Central Information Commission vs Department of Posts & Ors

Information Sought:
This is an application for condonation of delay of 39 days.

CPIO's Reply:
Delay in providing information.

CIC's Decision:
The present appeal is against the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.(C) No.11576/2009 whereby the learned single Judge has modified the order passed by the Central Information Commission wherein a penalty of Rs.25,000/- was levied on the Central Public Information Officer(CPIO) and reduced the same to Rs.5,000/. On a perusal of the information sought and the time consumed, the Court find that reasonable period has been spent and hence, that would tantamount to an explanation for delay caused by the officer concerned.

Decision by High Court:
In view of the aforesaid, the reduction of the penalty by the learned single Judge is justified. Appeal disposed off.
35 CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 3671 of 2010
(111.65 kB) pdf icon
12 Nov, 2010 Ram Sakha Singh Vs. Sunil Kumar Chaudhary, State Chief Information Commissioner

Information Sought:
The applicant, who is a retired village Panchayat Officer, made a request for obtaining information regarding disbursement of fund under several Schemes, job cords, meeting of several committees, constructions etc. under Section 6 of Right to Information Act, 2005.

CPIO's Reply:
The opposite party did not pass any order on the said appeal of the applicant, he approached this Court by filing a writ petition,

Decision by High Court:
High court passed orders for providing information on two occasions. Applicant submitted that neither a copy of the aforementioned order dated 18.1.2010 was served upon the applicant nor the same was passed in his presence, as such the applicant was not aware of the aforementioned orders dated 4.1.2010 and 18.1.2010. He further submits that had he been aware about the said orders, he would have definitely not filed the contempt applications. High Court directed the public authority to make Rs.50,000/- as penalty.
36 WRIT - C No. - 59636 of 2010
(31.61 kB) pdf icon
04 Oct, 2010 Bans Raj Singh Vs. U.P. State Information Commission

Information Sought:
Petitioner's contention is that he wanted certain information from the respondent no. 2 Director, Social Welfare Department, U.P. Lucknow under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

CPIO's Reply:
Information not supplied.

Decision by High Court:
The High Court dispose of the writ petition by giving an opportunity to the authority to present before the appellate authority, who has passed such order and explain the position within a week positively and in spite of the same if such authority shows any rigidity then cost as proposed to be imposed upon such person holding the position from his personal account.
37 WRIT - C No. - 15421 of 2008
(28.33 kB) pdf icon
07 Sep, 2010 M.J.P. Rohilkhand University Vs. State Information Commission.

Information Sought:
The facts of the present case are that complainant, submitted applications under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 obtaining certain information before the Registrar of the University, but due to un-avoidable circumstances the same could not be provided within time. Aggrieved thereby, the complainant preferred an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act before the Vice Chancellor of the University and the information has been provided to the complainant. Thereafter complainant being un-satisfied filed another appeal before the State Information Commission under Section 19(3) of the Act.

CPIO's Reply:
Information not supplied with in time period.

CIC's Decision:
All the information have been provided to the complainant as was required and this fact has been brought to the notice of the Commission, inspite of that, the Commission has passed the impugned orders.

Decision by High Court:
High Court dismissed the Order of the Commission imposing penalty on CPIO.
38 W.P.(C) 5945/2010 and CM APPL No. 11697/2010
(51.66 kB) pdf icon
01 Sep, 2010 Commissioner Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan vs Santosh Kumar

Information Sought:
The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 6th April 2010 passed by the Central Information Commission

CPIO's Reply:
Delay in providing information

CIC's Decision:
Central Information Commission to the extent that it has levied a penalty of Rs. 25,000/‐ on the Petitioner for the delay in furnishing the necessary information to the Respondent.

Decision by High Court:
The High Court upheld the decision of CIC. The Petition dismissed.
39 W.P. (C) 5469/2008
(37.49 kB) pdf icon
20 Mar, 2009 Col. Rajendra Singh vs The Central Information Commissioner

Information Sought:
Petitioner's contention is that he wanted certain information

CPIO's Reply:
Delay in providing information.

CIC's Decision:
CIC directed recovery of penalty of Rs.25,000/- in two instalments for delayed supply of information to the second respondent

Decision by High Court:
Hon’ble Court had observed that the Commission has to be satisfied that the delay occurred was without reasonable cause or that there the refusal to receive application or the request was denied malfidely. Penalty imposed by CIC quashed.
40 W.P. (C) 7244/2009, C.M. No.2956/2009 (Stay)
(46.93 kB) pdf icon
02 Mar, 2009 Vandana Mittal vs Central Information Commission

Information Sought:
a) What action has been taken on my complaints dated 18.1.07 and 1.2.07 and who are the officers investigating the matter and provide me the copies of entire proceedings including the copy of report of investigation officer and the copies of the statements of accused or any person recorded, if any, in the aforesaid matter?

b) What action has been taken against a police officer who refused to take any action regarding massive encroachment of public land?

CPIO's Reply:
The Public Information Officer designated by the Delhi Police apparently did not make any order.

CIC's Decision:
It is contended by the petitioner that the CIC did not consider the appeal in its proper perspective and affirmed the reasoning of the respondents on irrelevant considerations. Learned counsel urged that the inapplicability of the exemption clause under Section 8 was expressly taken in the grounds of appeal but the same have not even been adverted to and reflected in the impugned order.

Decision by High Court:
Penalty imposed by CIC quashed.
41 WP(C) No. 3114/2007
(40.28 kB) pdf icon
17 Apr, 2007 Bhagat Singh Vs Chief Information Commissioner

Information Sought:
The Petitioner in the present writ proceeding approaches this Court seeking partial quashing of an order of the Central Information Commission and also for a direction from this Court that the information sought by him under the Right to Information Act, 2005

CIC's Decision:
The CIC, on 8th May 2006 allowed the second appeal and set aside the rejection of information, and the exemption Clause 8(1) (j) cited by Respondents No. 2 and 3.

Decision by High Court:
Court takes a serious note of the two-year delay in releasing information, the lack of adequate reasoning in the orders of the Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority and the lack of application of mind in relation to the nature of information sought. The materials on record clearly show the lackadaisical approach of the second and third respondent in releasing the information sought. However, the Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that they malafidely denied the information sought. Therefore, a direction to the Central Information Commission to initiate action under Section 20 of the Act can’t be issued.
Total Case uploaded: 41