Court rules imposition of penalty on First Appellate Authority as deemed Public Information Officer is unsustainable without fulfilling statutory requirements.
In a significant judgment, the Chhattisgarh High Court has quashed the penalty imposed on Kaushlendra Kumar, who was functioning as the First Appellate Authority under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. The court held that the penalty of Rs. 25,000 levied by the State Information Commission was unsustainable as it failed to satisfy the statutory requirements for treating him as a deemed Public Information Officer (PIO).
The case arose when respondent no. 4 sought information related to wild buffaloes under the RTI Act. The designated Public Information Officer (PIO) responded that no such records were available, leading to the filing of a first appeal with Kaushlendra Kumar, the then Chief Conservator of Forest (Eco Tourism). Despite conducting the appeal proceedings in accordance with the law, Kumar was penalized for allegedly failing to furnish satisfactory information.
Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad delivered the judgment, emphasizing that the statutory conditions under Sections 5(4) and 5(5) of the RTI Act were not met. The court noted that there was no material to show that the designated PIO had sought Kumar's assistance, a prerequisite for treating him as a deemed PIO. Moreover, the penalty order failed to record satisfaction regarding the statutory ingredients necessary under Section 20(1) of the Act.
Citing previous Supreme Court rulings, the court reiterated that penalties under Section 20 are penal in nature and require strict compliance with statutory conditions, including the recording of reasons and consideration of the noticee's explanation. The judgment underscored the violation of principles of natural justice due to the misinterpretation of statutory provisions and non-application of mind by the State Information Commission.
Consequently, the High Court quashed the penalty and all related proceedings, providing relief to the petitioner. This decision reaffirms the importance of adhering to statutory requirements before imposing penalties under the RTI Act.
Bottom line:-
Penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 cannot be imposed on an officer functioning as First Appellate Authority unless the statutory requirements for treating him as a deemed Public Information Officer under Sections 5(4) and 5(5) are satisfied.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 5(4), 5(5), 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005
Kaushlendra Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (Chhattisgarh) : Law Finder Doc id # 2944595
