Rameshwar Singh Malik, J. - (1.) PRESENT writ petition is directed against the order dated 29.1.2013 (Annexure P -1) passed by the State Information Commission, Punjab -respondent No. 1, whereby penalty of Rs. 25,000/ - was imposed on the Public Information Officer -cum -Inspector General of Police (Crime) Punjab and compensation of Rs. 10,000/ - was also directed to be paid to respondent No. 2 by the Public Authority, for alleged delay in supplying the information. Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, written statement was filed on behalf of respondent No. 2.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner -State submits that complainant -respondent No. 2, vide his original application dated 30.3.2012 (Annexure P -3) moved under the Right to Information Act, 2005, ('the Act' for short), never demanded any photographs much less original thereof. He further submits that information sought by the complainant -respondent No. 2 was duly supplied to him. However, he did not accept the copy of FSL report but put the demand of original photographs. On the other hand, defence taken by the petitioners was that respondent No. 2 never demanded photographs and in fact, he wanted to get original photographs without paying fee for it. He would next contend that although respondent No. 2 was not entitled to get the original photographs, yet in an endeavour to put the controversy at rest, even the original photographs were supplied to him alongwith FSL report. He submits that respondent No. 1 failed to record any reason, whatsoever, while passing the impugned order and imposition of penalty was wholly unwarranted on the face of it. He concluded by submitting that even if it is assumed that the respondent -Commission was acting as an administrative authority, yet it was under legal obligation to record sufficient reasons. Since respondent No. 1 has failed to record any reasons before passing the impugned order, the same was not sustainable in law. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for petitioners relies on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manohar v. State of Maharashtra, : 2013 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 918 : 2013 (1) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 394 : AIR 2013 SC 681 and a judgment of this Court in Satpal Singh v. SIC Haryana and others,, 2012 (5) R.C.R. (Civil) 563 :, 2012 ILR Punjab and Haryana 500. Finally, he prays for setting aside the impugned order, by allowing the present writ petition.
(3.) Per contra learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that since provisions of Section 20 of the RTI Act were clear in this regard, no further reasons were required to be recorded by the respondent -Commission. He further submits that since the petitioners caused intentional delay in supplying the information to respondent No. 2, respondent -Commission rightly imposed penalty vide impugned order and the same deserves to be upheld. He relies upon on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Namit Sharma passed in writ petition (C) No. 210 of 2012 and particularly para 20 and 21 thereof, to contend that since the Information Commission was performing an administrative function, it was not bound to record detailed reasons. He would next contend that petitioners supplied information, but at a belated stage and that too only before respondent -Information Commission because of which respondent -Commission has rightly invoked its jurisdiction under Section 20 of the RTI Act, while passing the impugned order. He prays for dismissal of the writ petition.;