Petitioner challenges Exts. P7 and P9. Ext. P7 order is passed by the 1st respondent imposing on the petitioner penalty of Rs 5,000/- under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act (for short 'the Act'). Ext. P9 is a direction issued by the Deputy Director of Panchayaths to deduct Rs.5,000/- from the salary of the petitioner in compliance with Ext. P 7 order. 2. The facts involved in this case would disclose that while the petitioner was functioning as the Secretary of Mananthavadi Grama Panchayat, the 4th respondent had submitted an application for certain information. It is contended that the petitioner had sent a reply as Ext. P3 stating that the information sought for are not available on verification. The 4th respondent preferred an appeal before the Panchayat Deputy Director, dissatisfied with the said communication. The appeal was disposed on 27.12.2011 stating that the documents sought for are required to be kept at the office of the Panchayath and the information has to be given after conducting appropriate search. The petitioner again sent a reply stating that the records could not be traced out. The 4th respondent again preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent. The matter was posted for evidence through video conference. The Secretary of the Grama Panchayat was directed to appear at the District Collectorate, Wyanad. The Secretary appeared for the conference and no notice was served on the petitioner. The Secretary, during enquiry, informed that the details were not mentioned in the application. The Commission found that the Panchayat ought to have found out such details by examining the registers of the Panchayat and thereafter serve on the 4th respondent the information sought for. The 1st respondent directed the 2nd respondent to give a reply to the 4th respondent within 15 days. The Commission also issued notice to the petitioner under Section 20(1) and (2) of the Act, to show cause why action should not be taken against him for non-compliance of the request made by the 4th respondent while he was stated to be the Information Officer of the Grama Panchayat. The petitioner submitted his objection inter alia contending that he has not committed any violation of the provisions of the Act and that the information sought for would not attract the provisions of the Act. However, the 1st respondent imposed on the petitioner a fine of Rs.5,000/- as per Ext. P7, which is under challenge.
3. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that there was no situation warranting invocation of Sections 20(1) and (2). Penalty can be imposed only if the information is not supplied within the time specified therein or the request had been malafidely denied or incorrect or misleading information is given. According to the petitioner, in so far as there is no such finding in Ext. P7 order, the same is illegal. That apart, the petitioner had only indicated that the documents were not available, which was the fact.
4. A perusal of Ext. P7 would indicate that the request made by the 4th respondent for supply of certain information was replied by the petitioner while he was the Information Officer. When a show cause notice was issued, the petitioner had given an explanation stating that he took charge as Secretary of Mananthavadi Grama Panchayat on 10.8.2011. The 4th respondent sought for information as per application dated 5.7.2011 and reply to the same has been issued on 4.8.2011, which was done by the previous Secretary. Verification of the particulars indicated that the 4th respondent submitted the application under the Act on 14.10.2011. The Special Grade Secretary had sent a reply to the 4th respondent on 8.11.2011 stating that the documents are not traceable. The appellate authority, viz. the Panchayat Deputy Director, has indicated in his order that the documents which the 4th respondent has sought for are documents which are compulsorily to be maintained in the Panchayat Office. It was indicated that the attempt of the petitioner was to mislead the State Commission by stating that the information was sought for on 5.7.2011 for which reply was given on 4.8.2011. It was therefore found that the petitioner had committed serious breach of duty while considering the application of the 4th respondent and he is liable to be imposed with the penalty under Section 20(1) and (2) of the Act, which reads as under:
“20. Penalties:- (1) 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, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub- section (1) of Section 7 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 the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees:
Provided that the Central Public information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him.
Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.
(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 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 the information, it shall recommend for disciplinary action against the Central Public Information Officer or State Public information Office, as the case may be, under the service rules applicable to him.”
5. Having regard to the discretionary powers available with the 1st respondent, it is clear that the petitioner had failed to give the information, which is a document available in the Panchayat Office, within the time prescribed, whereas when explanation was sought for, he took a contention that the information was sought for at a time when the previous Secretary was in office. This fact was found to be incorrect and on verification of the records, the first Appellate Authority had indicated that the documents are compulsorily to be maintained in the office. When a citizen requests for a document, which is compulsorily to be maintained in the Grama Panchayat, it is not open for the Information Officer to sent a reply stating that the said document is not available. It is their obligation to sort out the document with the available material and then give the information. Ext. P2 is the application dated 14.10.2011. The information sought for was the minutes of the decision taken by the Panchayat Committee with reference to the taking over of the Santhi Nagar-Nagathan Kunnu Road. It is one thing to indicate that no such decision has been taken. But to say that the decision is not traceable is apparently without verification of the records. Therefore, it is clear that there was non-compliance of the request made by the 4th respondent and as a result, the 4th respondent was denied the information at the relevant point of time. This aspect of the matter had been taken into consideration by the 1st respondent while considering the proceedings. When it is found that there is negligence on the part of the petitioner in providing the information, there is absolutely nothing wrong in the 1st respondent imposing penalty as contemplated under Section 20(1) of the Act on the petitioner.
Having regard to the aforesaid factual finding, I do not think that the petitioner is justified in challenging Ext. P7. Ext. P9 is only a consequential order passed on Ext. P7. Under these circumstances, there being no merit in the writ petition, the same is dismissed.
Sd/- A.M. Shaffique, Judge.
Tds/