- (1.) None appears for the respondent, even though notice issued and served.
(2.) The petitioner at the relevant time, when the cause of action for filing this writ petition arose was Chairman of M.P. Pollution Control Board, Bhopal and has filed this writ petition being aggrieved by the order dated 09 -01 -2009, passed by the State Information Commissioner imposing penalty of Rs.1500/ - on the petitioner under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act. It seems that one Ajay Shankar Dubey filed an application before the Public Information Officer of the M.P. Pollution Control Board seeking certain information. The Public Information Officer proceeded in the matter and it seems that there was some delay in furnishing of the information by the Public Information Officer.. Finally the matter travelled to the M.P. State Information Commission and by holding that the petitioner being head of the department is also responsible for the delay in furnishing of the information, jurisdiction under section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 has been exercised and penalty of Rs.1500/ - has been imposed upon the petitioner.
(3.) Shri R.N.Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner took me through the provisions of sub sections 1 and 2 of section 20 and argued that under what circumstances penalty can be imposed that also only against State Public Information Officer or the Central Central Public Information Officer. It is indicated by him that under sub sections 1 and 2 of section 20, there is no stipulation for any penalty to be imposed against the head of the department or the appellate authority. It is submitted by him that statutory provisions specifically provides for imposition of penalty on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer and in the absence of any other officer being held liable, it is said that act of imposting penalty on the petitioner who was only head of the department is unsustainable. In support of his contention, he invites attention to this court to the judgment passed in the case of Lajjaram Pandey Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Information Commission and others, 2010 4 MPHT 450 to say that imposition of penalty against the present petitioner is not permissible. I have considered the submissions made by Shri R.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and on going through the provisions of sub sections 1 and 2 of section 20 of the Right to Information Act, it is clear that in case where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission as the case may be, at the time of deciding complaint or appeal forms an opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer 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 malafide denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information in furnishing 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 though rupees. A bare reading of this section clearly shows that the power to impose penalty under this clause is available only against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer and not against any other officer. There is nothing in sub sections 1 and 2 of section 20 of the Act to indicate that for the delay in furnishing any information, penal action can be taken. When a statute contemplates a particular officers against whom the penalty can be imposed, the respondent has no authority to impose penalty against any other officer like the petitioner. This view as exercised is already affirmed by Bench of this court in the case of Lajjaram Pandey Keeping in view the aforesaid, as the petitioner is head of the department in the M.P. Pollution Control Board and is not a person against whom provisions of sub sections 1 and 2 of section 20 can be involved, therefore, the order passed imposing penalty of Rs.1500/ - as indicated hereinabove cannot be sustained. In view of the the this petition is allowed. Order impugned dated 09 -01 -2009 imposing penalty of Rs.1500/ - against the petitioner is quashed and the amount if any deposited is directed to be refunded.;