Madras High Court
A.Devaki vs The Tamil Nadu State Information ... on 6 January, 2023
Author: Anita Sumanth
Bench: Anita Sumanth
W.P.Nos.14581 & 14582 of 2015 &
M.P.Nos.2(2) of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 06.01.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
W.P.Nos.14581 & 14582 of 2015 &
M.P.Nos.2(2) of 2015
A.Devaki ... Petitioner in W.P.No.14581 of 2015
C.Ashok Kumar ... Petitioner in W.P.No.14582 of 2015
Vs
1.The Tamil Nadu State Information Commission,
Rep. by its Registrar,
Kamadhenu Super Market,
First Floor, Old No.278, New No.373,
Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018.
2.R.Kalaiselvi ... Respondents in both W.P.s'
Common Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying to issue a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records in case
No.39962/Enquiry/D/2014 (33432/D/2014) dated 20.02.2015 on the file of the
Tamil Nadu State Information Commission and quash the same.
(In all W.P.'s)
For Petitioners : Mr.J.Venkataraman
For Respondents : Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan
Standing Counsel – R1
Mr.T.Gowthaman – R2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1
W.P.Nos.14581 & 14582 of 2015 &
M.P.Nos.2(2) of 2015
COMMON ORDER
A common order is passed in these writ petitions seeing as both petitioners challenge orders passed by the Tamil Nadu Information Commission/R1 imposing a penalty under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short 'Act'). The petitioners were holding the position of District Child Protection Officers in the District Child Protection Unit at Korimedu, Salem.
2.While so, the second respondent worked in the same unit as a protection officer on contractual basis. Certain difficulties arose qua the petitioners and R2 and the petitioners were of the view that the contract of the second respondent was liable to be terminated on the ground of serious deficiencies in her service. The termination of contract was challenged by R2 by way of a writ petition that came to be allowed as against the termination order passed in W.P.No.23399 of 2013 on 23.08.2013.
3.The present petitioners have filed writ appeal in W.A.No.932/2014 and by order dated 28.08.2014, the Division Bench of this Court has granted a stay of the order of the learned Single Judge. On 21.08.2013, R2 had made an application to access certain information contained in file No.6/2013 dated https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2 W.P.Nos.14581 & 14582 of 2015 & M.P.Nos.2(2) of 2015 29.07.2013. She also sought certain other documents to be furnished to her within 48 hours.
4.The petitioner as a Public Information Officer of the District Child Protection Unit rejected the emergent request on 23.08.2013, on the ground that there was no urgency that warranted immediate response within 48 hours and that the information shall be sent to her within the statutory period of 30 days.
5.An appeal came to be filed by the petitioner before R1 on 22.10.2013. It was only in the course of the proceedings before R1 that the material sought for was supplied to R2 and thus in the course of their order, R1 has proceeded to impose penalty under Section 20 of the Act as well. The procedure envisaged under Section 19 in respect to imposition of penalty has no doubt been followed in that, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioners prior to passing of the impugned order.
6.The petitioners are also seen to have submitted detailed responses, referred to in the covering letter dated 14.10.2014. The impugned orders, however, wherein the Commissioner has proposed to impose penalty of a sum of Rs.7,500/- in the case of the petitioner in W.P.No.14581 of 2015 and Rs.25,000/- in the case of the petitioner in W.P.No.14582 of 2015 do not https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3 W.P.Nos.14581 & 14582 of 2015 & M.P.Nos.2(2) of 2015 consider the submissions in detail and Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan, learned Standing counsel would fairly agree. The impugned orders are thus vitiated by lack of reasoning and are thus set aside.
7.In the case of Manohar Vs State of Maharastra and others [2012 (13) SCC 14], the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the scope and ambit of application of mind by the Commission prior to imposition of penalty and states at paragraphs 28 and 29, as follows:
“28.1. (1) At the time of deciding any complaint or appeal;
28.2. (ii) If it 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 (i.e. 30 days);
28.3. (iii) Mala fide denied the request for information or intentionally given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information; or 28.4. (iv) Destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information;
28.5. (v) Then it shall recommend for disciplinary action against the stated persons under the relevant service rules.
29. From the above dissected language of the provision, it is clear that first of all an opinion has to be formed by the Commission. This opinion is to be formed at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal after hearing the person concerned.
The opinion formed has to have basis or reasons and must be relatable to any of the defaults of the provision. It is a penal https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4 W.P.Nos.14581 & 14582 of 2015 & M.P.Nos.2(2) of 2015 provision as it vests the delinquent with civil consequences of initiation of and/or even punishment in disciplinary The grounds stated in the section are exhaustive and it is not for the Commission to add other grounds which are not specifically stated in the language of Section 20(2). The section deals with two different proceedings. Firstly, the appeal or complaint filed before the is to be decided and, secondly, if the Commission forms such opinion, as contemplated under the provisions, then it can recommend that proceedings be taken against the said delinquent Central Public Information Officer or State Public Officer. The purpose of the legislation in requiring both these proceedings to be taken together is obvious not only from the language of the section but even by applying the mischief rule wherein the provision is examined from the very purpose for which the provision has been enacted. While deciding the complaint or the appeal, if the Commission finds that the appeal is without merit or the complaint is without substance, the information need not be furnished for reasons to be recorded. If such be the decision, the question of recommending disciplinary action under Section 20(2) may not arise. Still, there may be another situation that upon perusing the records of the appeal or the complaint, the Commission may be of the opinion that none of the defaults contemplated under Section 20(2) is satisfied and, therefore, no action is called for. To put it simply, the Central or the State Commission have no jurisdiction to add to the exhaustive grounds of default mentioned in the provisions of Section 20(2). The case of default must strictly fall within the specified grounds of the provisions of Section 20(2). This provision has to be construed and applied strictly. Its ambit cannot be permitted to be enlarged at the whims of the Commission.”
8.The impugned orders both dated 20.02.2015, state as follows, while dealing with the explanations put forth by the petitioners:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5 W.P.Nos.14581 & 14582 of 2015 & M.P.Nos.2(2) of 2015 '8/vdnt ,d;iwa tprhuizapd; Kotpy;
,t;thizaj;jhy; fPH;f;fz;l Mizfs;
gpwg;gpf;fg;gLfpd;wd:
1/kDjhuhpd; kD ehshd 10/08/2013 Kjy;
10/10/2013 tiuapyhd 2 khj';fs; bghJj; jfty; mYtyuhfg; gzpapypUe;j jpUkjp/M/njtfp mth;fs; mspj;j tpsf;f mwpf;ifapy; kDjhuiug; gw;wp Fiw Twpa[s;shnu jtpu. kDjhuUf;Fj; jfty; tH';f eltof;if vLf;fg;gl;lJ Fwpj;J ,t;thizaj;jpw;F vt;tpj tpsf;fj;ija[k; mspf;ftpy;iy vd;gjhy;. MtuJ gzpf;fhyj;jpy; 30 jpd';fs; kDjhuUf;F jfty; tH';f jtwpa[s;sjhy; mthplkpUe;J U:/7500-? jz;lkhf tNy; bra;J chpa muRf; fzf;Fj; jiyg;gpy; brYj;jp mJFwpj;J tpgu mwpf;ifia ,t;thizaj;jpw;F ,t;thiz fpilf;fg;bgw;w xU khjj;jpw;Fs; mDg;gp itf;f ntz;Lbkd;W ,af;Feh;. rK:fg; ghJfhg;g[j; Jiw. brd;id?10 mth;fSf;F ,jd;K:yk; mwpt[Wj;jg;gLfpwJ/ 2/kDjhuUf;F bghJj; jfty; mYtyuhd jpU/rp/mnrhf;Fkhh; vd;gth; mtuJ gzpf;fhykhd 10/10/2013 Kjy; 08/09/2014 tiu 11 khj';fshf Kgikahd jftiy tH';f chpa eltof;iffs; nkw;bfhs;shjjw;F mtUila 16/10/2014 ehspl;l tpsf;f mwpf;ifapy; mspj;Js;s tpsf;f';fs; Vw;Wf; bfhs;sf;Toajhf ,y;iy vd;gjhy;. mthplkpUe;J U:/25.000-? jz;lkhf tNy; bra;J chpa muRf;
fzf;Fj; jiyg;gpy; brYj;jp mJFwpj;J tpgu
mwpf;ifia ,t;thizaj;jpw;F ,t;thiz
fpilf;fg;bgw;w xU khjj;jpw;Fs; mDg;gp itf;f ntz;Lbkd;W ,af;Feh;. rK:fg; ghJfhg;g[j; Jiw.
brd;id?10 mth;fSf;F ,jd;K:yk;
mwpt[Wj;jg;gLfpwJ/'
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6
W.P.Nos.14581 & 14582 of 2015 &
M.P.Nos.2(2) of 2015
9.In my considered view, the detailed explanations put forth by the petitioners have not been considered in proper perspective and the orders are thus set aside.
10.These writ petitions are allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
kbs 06.01.2023
Index : Yes / No
Speaking Order
To
The Tamil Nadu State Information Commission, Rep. by its Registrar, Kamadhenu Super Market, First Floor, Old No.278, New No.373, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7 W.P.Nos.14581 & 14582 of 2015 & M.P.Nos.2(2) of 2015 Dr.ANITA SUMANTH, J.
kbs W.P.Nos.14581 & 14582 of 2015 & M.P.Nos.2(2) of 2015 06.01.2023 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8