SARPANCH, GRAM PANCHAYAT, SILIKALAN, RADAUR Vs. STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, HARYANA
LAWS(P&H)-2011-1-188
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on January 07,2011

Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Silikalan, Radaur Appellant
VERSUS
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR,J. - (1.) THE conspectus of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that Jai Singh son of Atma Ram (respondent No. 2) filed an application (Annexure P2/T) before the petitioner-State Public Information Officer (for brevity "petitioner-SPIO")-cum-Sarpanch of village Silikalan, for seeking information, in regard to the proceeding book, cash book, lease (Patta) register, saving pass book of bank, receipt of expenditure, copy of muster-roll from April 2005 to August, 2008, copies of DFC, SGRY records, stock register, grant of HRDF and cash book register by virtue of the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act"). He has also attached a postal order bearing No. 41-G-130312 with the application, in lieu of the required fees. The information was not supplied to him by the petitioner- SPIO Sarpanch. He (petitioner) arbitrarily demanded the exorbitant fees from respondent No. 2 in this regard.
(2.) AGGRIEVED by the action of petitioner-SPIO, private respondent filed the first appeal and the Ist Appellate Authority-cum-BDPO (for short "FAA") directed him (petitioner) to supply the information to respondent No. 2, vide letter bearing No. 1568 dated 14.11.2008 (Annexure P3/T) within two days. Petitioner Civil SPIO, instead of supplying the information, again arbitrarily raised the demand of Rs. 9950/- for giving the information. Still aggrieved by the inaction of petitioner-SPIO and order (Annexure P3/T) of FAA, respondent No. 2 filed an appeal. The State Information Commission (hereinafter to be referred as "SIC"), Haryana accepted the appeal and directed the petitioner-SPIO to furnish the information to respondent No. 2 free of charge on receiving the order within 15 working days, by virtue of impugned order dated 17.2.2009 (Annexure P10).
(3.) AGAIN instead of complying with the order of SIC, petitioner -SPIO filed the instant petition, challenging the impugned order (Annexure P10).;


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