SHIVANAND SALEKAR, P I O, OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER WD XVIII (ROADS), PWD, PONDA-GOA Vs. GOA STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION THROUGH STATE CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
LAWS(BOM)-2017-5-176
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on May 05,2017

Shivanand Salekar, P I O, Office Of Executive Engineer Wd Xviii (Roads), Pwd, Ponda-Goa Appellant
VERSUS
GOA STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION THROUGH STATE CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

M.S. Sonak, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. J. Lobo, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner.
(2.) The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 11.5.2011 made by State Information Commission imposing penalty upon the petitioner. The Operative portion of the impugned order reads thus:- "The Respondent is directed to pay Rs. 6,000/- (Rupees Six thousand only) as penalty. The said amount of penalty should be recovered in two monthly instalmets from the salary of the Opponent from the month of July, 2011 and August, 2011 by the Director of Accounts. A copy of the order be sent to the Director of Accounts, Panaji Goa for execution and recovery of the penalty from Respondent. The said amount be paid in Government Treasury In case the Respondent wants to pay the entire amount in one instalment he is free to do so. Pronounced in the Commission on this 11st day of May, 2011."
(3.) Mr. Lobo, submits that the impugned order is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the case of Reserve Bank of India Vs. Shri Rui Ferreira, in Writ Petition No. 132 of 2011 decided on 28.7.2011 as well as decision in case of Shri A. A. Parulekar Vs Shri G. G. Kambli in Writ Petition No.364 of 2007 decided on 26.3.2010. He submits that in this case, complainant without instituting an appeal before the Appellate Authority, straight away, filed a complaint before the Information Commissioner stating that information requested by him was not furnished within a period of 30 days. Mr. Lobo submits that such course of action was impermissible in the light of the decision in the case of Reserve Bank of India . Further, Mr. Lobo submits that there was hardly any significant delay in furnish of information and proper reasons were furnished as to why such information could not be given within 30 days period. Mr. Lobo submits that the petitioner had categorically pleaded that complainant was telephonically informed to come to collect the information but it is the complainant who failed to collect the same. For all these reasons, he submits that the impugned order is required to be interfered with.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.