Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tejinder Singh Pfs S/O Balwant Singh vs Punjab State Information Commission ... on 12 January, 2011
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Civil Writ Petition No.8847 of 2007 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision:- 12.1.2011
Tejinder Singh PFS s/o Balwant Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
Punjab State Information Commission and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present:- Mr.Manpreet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Nemo for the respondents.
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral)
The epitome of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that Sanjeev Kumar (respondent No.2) sought the following information from the Public Information Officer-cum-Divisional Manager, Forest Corporation, Phillaur (hereinafter to be referred as "the Forest Corporation, Phillaur"), vide application bearing No.ACM12694 dated 11.11.2006 under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short "the Act"):-
1) Detail trees which have cut in Division Jan.2004 to 10 November 2006 Phillaur with the revenue earned (tree wise detail).
2) Attested Copies of muster rolls employed directly or through contractors Philaur Divn.
He has also sent a copy of the same letter bearing No.12695 dated 11.1.2006 (Annexure P1) to the Public Information Officer-cum-Divisional Manager, Forest Corporation, Mohali (for brevity "the Forest Corporation, Mohali") as well. The Public Information Officer of Forest Corporation, Phillaur supplied the requisite information to respondent No.2, vide letter bearing No.15870-71 dated 18.12.2006. As the information was not supplied by the Public Information Officer of Forest Corporation, Mohali, pertaining to the Forest Civil Writ Petition No.8847 of 2007 2 Corporation, Phillaur, therefore, respondent No.2 filed the appeal before the Managing Director, Punjab State Forest Development Corporation, Chandigarh- First Appellate Authority (for short "FAA"), but still the information was not supplied to him.
2. Aggrieved by the action of Public Information Officer and FAA, the respondent No.2 filed second appeal. Nemo appeared on behalf of the parties and the appeal was disposed of by the State Information Commission (for brevity "SIC") in their absence, by virtue of impugned order dated 10.5.2007 (Annexure P7), the operative part of which is as under:-
"Shri Tajinder Singh, PFS, Divisional Manager-cum-PIO, Punjab State Forest Development Corporation, SCF 59, Phase X, Mohali, is directed to deposit the total amount of penalty of Rs.25,000/- in the State Treasury within 10 days of the date of receipt of these orders. In case he fails to do this, the Managing Director, Punjab State Forest Development Corporation, Sector 34, Chandigarh, is hereby directed to ensure that the amount of penalty is recovered from the pay of Shri Tajinder Singh, Divisional Manager -cum-PIO, Punjab Forest Development Corporation, Mohali, and deposited in the State Treasury. The pay of Shri Tajinder Singh will hence forth not be disbursed to him till such times as the penalty being imposed has been recovered from him.
In addition to the above, in exercise of the powers conferred upon us under Section 20(2) of the RTI Act, 2005, we hereby recommend to the concerned disciplinary authority that disciplinary action should be taken against Shri Tajinder Singh, under the service rules applicable to him for having denied the information to the complainant without reasonable cause.
It shall be incumbent upon the Managing Director, Punjab State Forest Development Corporation, Sector 34, Chandigarh to inform this Court that the orders being passed today have been implemented in letter and spirit before the next date of hearing. Adjourned to 10 AM on 5.7.2007 for conformation of compliance."
3. The petitioner did not feel satisfied and filed the instant writ petition challenging the impugned order (Annexure P7), invoking the provisions of Civil Writ Petition No.8847 of 2007 3 Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended with some amount of vehemence that although the information sought pertained to Forest Corporation, Phillaur, which has already been supplied to respondent No.2 in the wake of his another application bearing No.ACM12694 dated 11.11.2006, but he has also wrongly sent the copy of application (Annexure P1) to the Public Information Officer of Forest Corporation, Mohali. The argument is that even petitioner informed respondent No.2 in this respect, vide letter dated 5.12.2006 (Annexure P2) and a copy of the same was endorsed to Managing Director, Punjab State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. Chandigarh for information. The petitioner also requested the concerned Divisional Manager, Forest Corporation, Phillaur to supply the requisite information, pertaining to Forest Corporation, Phillaur, vide letter dated 6.12.2006 (Annexure P4). The argument further proceeds that as per the certificate (Annexure P11), the notice sent by the SIC addressed to Public Information Officer, office of Divisional Manager, Punjab State Forest Development Corporation Limited, Mohali, was not actually delivered to the addressee, instead it was delivered to the office of Public Relation Department, Punjab.
5. None appeared on behalf of the respondents to contest the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable help and after considering the matter deeply, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be accepted in this context.
7. As is evident from the record that respondent No.2 sought the indicated information, pertaining to Forest Corporation, Phillaur, vide letter bearing No.ACM12694 dated 11.11.2006. He has also sent a copy of the same application (Annexure P1) to the Forest Corporation, Mohali. As is clear from the order dated 30.3.2007 (Annexure P10) of SIC that the information asked for by Civil Writ Petition No.8847 of 2007 4 respondent No.2, vide his application dated 11.11.2006 has already been supplied, vide letter bearing No.15870-71 dated 18.12.2006.
8. What is not disputed here is that neither the petitioner nor respondents appeared before the SIC when the impugned order (Annexure P7) was passed. Annexure P11 is the certificate issued on 29.8.2007 from the office of Senior Superintendent of Post Officers, Chandigarh, which is to the following effect:-
"In reference to your letter referred to above, the requisite information is furnished as under:-
New Sectt. P.O. Registered Letter No.RL A-3133 dated 05.04.2007 sent by Punjab State Information Commission, SCO 84-85, Sector 17, Chandigarh & addressed to Public Information Officer, o/o Divisional Manager, Punjab State Forest Development Corporation Limited, SCF 59, Phase-10, Mohali was not delivered to the addressee. Instead it was delivered to o/o Public Relation Department (Punjab), SCO 107-109, Sector-34-A, Chandigarh on 12.04.2007, as the article had the address of o/o Public Relation (Punjab), Sector 34, Chandigarh & this fact was admitted by the recipient namely Smt. Veena Rani, Official of the office of Public Relation (Punjab), Sector 34, Chandigarh who further stated that on opening of article, she found that the contents of article were sent by the office of the Information Commission, SCO 84-85, Sector 17, Chandigarh, so she dispatched the article to the sender through ordinary post.
The requestor may tender an appeal within 30 days from the receipt of this letter to the appellate authority i.e. Director Postal Service (HQ), o/o Chief Postmaster General, Punjab Circle, Chandigarh."
9. Meaning thereby, it is established on record that the petitioner was not served in the appeal and the SIC has passed the impugned order, presuming that he (petitioner) has refused to appear in the appeal and the information sought pertained to Forest Corporation, Mohali, when in fact the information sought pertained to Forest Corporation, Phillaur, which has already been supplied, vide Annexure P10.
10. In this manner, a stigmatic impugned order adversely affecting the Civil Writ Petition No.8847 of 2007 5 rights has been passed by the SIC against the petitioner without serving any notice to him and ordered the penalty of Rs.25,000/-, to be recovered from his pay, which is against the statutory provisions of the Act/Rules and principles of natural justice. Therefore, to me, the impugned order (Annexure P7) cannot legally be sustained in the eyes of law. The real controversy between the parties can only be resolved by the SIC after hearing the parties and examining the relevant record in this behalf.
11. In the light of the aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the decision of the appeal before the SIC, the instant writ petition is accepted. Consequently, the impugned order (Annexure P7) is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the SIC for its fresh decision after affording the opportunities to concerned parties in accordance with law.
(Mehinder Singh Sullar) 12.1.2011 Judge AS