M.M. Kumar, J. - (1.) THE instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 4.1.2007 (P -1), passed by the State Information Commission, Haryana -respondent No. 2, claiming that he has failed to impose penalty as contemplated under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for brevity, 'the Act'), despite the fact that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were deficient in not furnishing the requisite information as per the provisions of the Act. A further prayer has been made for directing respondent No. 4 to pay penalty to the petitioner as per the provisions of the Act.
(2.) DURING the course of hearing of the application by the State Information Commission, information as sought by the petitioner was provided, as is evident from reading of the order. However, the State Information Commission -respondent No. 2 did not impose any penalty contemplated by Section 20 of the Act. The prayer made by the petitioner is that penalty must be imposed once there is delay in supply of information. The operative part of the order reads as under: In view of the fact that the Respondents assure the Commission that the lapse was not due to any malafide intention but due to lack of proper appreciation of the provisions of the Act, the appeal is disposed off with the direction that the time limits and procedure stipulated under various provisions of the Right to Information Act should be strictly adhered to. The respondent No. 2 should in future communicate clearly reasons for withholding of the information under the Act. The respondents shall refund any fee over and above application fee of Rs. 50/ -, deposited by the applicant within 30 days of receipt of this order. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that once the Commission has accepted that there was no malafide intention and the delay was caused only on account of lack of proper appreciation of the provisions of the Act then it must be construed to be a reasonably cause within the meaning of second proviso to Section 20(1) of the Act. According to second proviso, the burden of proof that the officer had acted reasonable and diligently was on the information officer. Once the aforementioned stand has been accepted, we do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned order and there is no room for us to issue directions against the respondents by invoking penal provision of the Act.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY , the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.;