- (1.) Heard Sri Ashutosh Shukla, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Shikhar Anand for opposite party no.1, who has filed his vakalatnama, which is taken on record.
(2.) Learned counsel for petitioner has argued that the order dated 7.7.2008 is illegal and has been passed without application of mind and contrary to the material available on record. He has also argued that the order is without jurisdiction. Petitioner has argued that he was never appointed/designated as Public Information Officer in the particular case and that the Secretary of the Samiti was the Public Information Officer and that he being the first appellate Authority was having no legal obligation to supervise the work of the Public Information Officer and to give information unless appeal is filed before him wherein in the instant case before the first appeal could be filed, the petitioner was transferred and other incumbent namely Sri C.P. Srivastava had joined at his place, therefore, at no point of time the petitioner held the office as Appellate Authority for entertaining or hearing the appeal in the present case. He further says that even the Chief Information Commissioner did not issue any notice to him but without giving any opportunity the order was passed against him which prompted the petitioner to move an application before the Chief Information Officer saying that he was not issued any notice and he was not at all responsible, if the information was not given within time. The Chief Information Commissioner did not consider the said fact but has declared the petitioner and Sri C.P. Srivastava, both jointly as Public Information Officer and then he imposed a penalty of Rs.250/- per day, upon each of them, from the date of passing of the order.
(3.) Sri Shikhar Anand has tried to defend the order of the State Information Commission, opposite party no.1, on the ground that the petitioner while appearing before him did not inform the Commission that he was not the Public Information officer. However, this argument was not corroborated from the fact available on record. On page 42/43, the application made by one U.N. Singh, who is the information seeker in the matter himself has submitted that he had applied to Sri Suresh Dogriyal, who is Sachiv Sahkari Avas Samiti Vasundhara, Ghaziabad. Thus it is clear that even complainant or the information seeker also did not approach the petitioner, who was an appellate authority in the matter. Ignoring the fact available on record with the Commission, the impugned orders have been passed.;