Jump to content
Prasad GLN

Delhi HC to CIC: Impose Fine as Per Law, Token Penalty for Delay Not Valid

Recommended Posts

Prasad GLN

Delhi HC to CIC: Impose Fine as Per Law, Token Penalty for Delay Not Valid

Vinita Deshmukh

18 May 2017 1

Extract:

 

"Can a Central Information Commissioner impose a penalty as per his whims and fancies? Early this week, the Delhi High Court slapped a show cause notice on the Central Information Commission (CIC), seeking an explanation for arbitrarily imposing a Rs5,000 penalty on a Public Information Officer (PIO) instead of going by Section 20 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

 

The court stated, “Section 20 (of the RTI Act) mandates a penalty of Rs250 for each day’s delay subject to a maximum of Rs25,000…there is no concept of token penalty…once the explanation rendered by respondent is rejected, the CIC was obliged to impose the penalty in terms of Section 20.”

 

The court has issued a notice to the CIC and the CPIO to respond by 22nd September.

 

The petitioner, Dinesh Pandey, referred to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors, where the apex court, while dealing with the concept of levy of mandatory penalty provided under Central Excise Act, 1944, has held that “when the statutory provision provides for mandatory penalty, the authorities cannot impose lesser penalty when no discretion is available on quantum of penalty under the said statutory provisions”.

 

The petitioner also referred to two other decisions, of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and High Court of Himachal Pradesh, which observed, “We find no provision in the Act which empowers the Commission to either reduce or enhance this penalty. If the Commission comes to the conclusion that there are reasonable grounds for delay and that the Public Information Officer (PIO) concerned has satisfactorily explained the delay then no penalty can be imposed. However once the Commission come to the conclusion that the penalty has to be imposed then the same must be @ Rs250 per day and not at any other rate at the whims and fancy of the Commission...”

 

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE: http://HTTP://WWW.MONEYLIFE.IN/ARTICLE/DELHI-HC-TO-CIC-IMPOSE-FINE-AS-PER-LAW-TOKEN-PENALTY-FOR-DELAY-NOT-VALID/50540.HTML

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dang

Sir,

Will it not open earlier cases where penalty lesser penalty was imposed.

 

- - - Updated - - -

 

Sir,

Will it not open earlier cases where penalty lesser penalty was imposed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

Once the case was disposed, further remedy is open only through writ before HC or Sc only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zaveri
On 5/18/2017 at 11:13 PM, Prasad GLN said:

Delhi HC to CIC: Impose Fine as Per Law, Token Penalty for Delay Not Valid

Vinita Deshmukh

18 May 2017 1

Extract:

 

"Can a Central Information Commissioner impose a penalty as per his whims and fancies? Early this week, the Delhi High Court slapped a show cause notice on the Central Information Commission (CIC), seeking an explanation for arbitrarily imposing a Rs5,000 penalty on a Public Information Officer (PIO) instead of going by Section 20 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

 

The court stated, “Section 20 (of the RTI Act) mandates a penalty of Rs250 for each day’s delay subject to a maximum of Rs25,000…there is no concept of token penalty…once the explanation rendered by respondent is rejected, the CIC was obliged to impose the penalty in terms of Section 20.”

 

The court has issued a notice to the CIC and the CPIO to respond by 22nd September.

 

The petitioner, Dinesh Pandey, referred to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors, where the apex court, while dealing with the concept of levy of mandatory penalty provided under Central Excise Act, 1944, has held that “when the statutory provision provides for mandatory penalty, the authorities cannot impose lesser penalty when no discretion is available on quantum of penalty under the said statutory provisions”.

 

The petitioner also referred to two other decisions, of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and High Court of Himachal Pradesh, which observed, “We find no provision in the Act which empowers the Commission to either reduce or enhance this penalty. If the Commission comes to the conclusion that there are reasonable grounds for delay and that the Public Information Officer (PIO) concerned has satisfactorily explained the delay then no penalty can be imposed. However once the Commission come to the conclusion that the penalty has to be imposed then the same must be @ Rs250 per day and not at any other rate at the whims and fancy of the Commission...”

 

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE: http://HTTP://WWW.MONEYLIFE.IN/ARTICLE/DELHI-HC-TO-CIC-IMPOSE-FINE-AS-PER-LAW-TOKEN-PENALTY-FOR-DELAY-NOT-VALID/50540.HTML

Pls. can you share delhi high court order copy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vamsi puli
Delhi HC to CIC: Impose Fine as Per Law, Token Penalty for Delay Not Valid
Vinita Deshmukh
18 May 2017 1
Extract:
 
"Can a Central Information Commissioner impose a penalty as per his whims and fancies? Early this week, the Delhi High Court slapped a show cause notice on the Central Information Commission (CIC), seeking an explanation for arbitrarily imposing a Rs5,000 penalty on a Public Information Officer (PIO) instead of going by Section 20 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
 
The court stated, “Section 20 (of the RTI Act) mandates a penalty of Rs250 for each day’s delay subject to a maximum of Rs25,000…there is no concept of token penalty…once the explanation rendered by respondent is rejected, the CIC was obliged to impose the penalty in terms of Section 20.”
 
The court has issued a notice to the CIC and the CPIO to respond by 22nd September.
 
The petitioner, Dinesh Pandey, referred to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors, where the apex court, while dealing with the concept of levy of mandatory penalty provided under Central Excise Act, 1944, has held that “when the statutory provision provides for mandatory penalty, the authorities cannot impose lesser penalty when no discretion is available on quantum of penalty under the said statutory provisions”.
 
The petitioner also referred to two other decisions, of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and High Court of Himachal Pradesh, which observed, “We find no provision in the Act which empowers the Commission to either reduce or enhance this penalty. If the Commission comes to the conclusion that there are reasonable grounds for delay and that the Public Information Officer (PIO) concerned has satisfactorily explained the delay then no penalty can be imposed. However once the Commission come to the conclusion that the penalty has to be imposed then the same must be @ Rs250 per day and not at any other rate at the whims and fancy of the Commission...”
 
READ ENTIRE ARTICLE: http://HTTP://WWW.MONEYLIFE.IN/ARTICLE/DELHI-HC-TO-CIC-IMPOSE-FINE-AS-PER-LAW-TOKEN-PENALTY-FOR-DELAY-NOT-VALID/50540.HTML
CIC has it's independent powers to decisions. Delhi high Court will showing angry in all RTI case's.

Sent from my InFocus M260 using RTI INDIA mobile app

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

Any one and every one should only implement the stipulations in RTI Act neither more nor less.  Those cases which stipulations are ignored, further appeal follows and every decision/judgment is subject to close scrutiny and surgical findings.  The prestige and knowledge of the deciding authority in interpretation of a law is involved.  So, it is not proper to find fault with a well reasoned judgment.

 

At the same time, different authorities interpret simple stipulations in the Act differently.

The present truth is that appellant has no say in imposing penalty and he is entitled only for information, and it is between IC and PIO on penalty.

When such is the case, who can go for appeal.. PIO that was blessed with nominal penalty ?  or CIC who knowingly imposed token penalty ?

Edited by Prasad GLN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
garg0505

Since RTI act is very clear and far from the doubts then why information commissioner choose to a path on going his discretion at his own and thereby giving a tool to PIO become a habitual offenders not to adhere the stipulated time line. According to my opinion High Court direction must be an eye opener for information commissioner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

Perceptions differ, and every one in a position think that his view point is correct.

Unfortunately, one has to spend minimum of half a lakh to go for appeal against decision of IC, and 99% of appellants can not afford, which IC is aware.

Some ICs want only publicity and whether the Act makes stipulations or not they use their discretion and recommend any thing and every thing that they consider it as proper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • Shree Vathsan
      By Shree Vathsan
      Can the General Diary of the police station where particulars of "All the details in r/o criminals arrested and entry of arrival/departure of all enrolled police officers on duty with nature of their duties, duty performed and places visited etc."   are maintained be inspected and photo copies sought from a particular police station under RTI?
      Is there any particular clause/section that needs to be quoted for inspection under RTI? Any format available for inspection under RTI?
    • Shree Vathsan
      By Shree Vathsan
      The person in the article below is me. I had a corporation official visit my house with the RTI and asking for my whereabouts. However the PIO has sent a reply on 8/5/19  stating that AE Div 170 is the person responsible for inspecting the banners on the particular stretch. It is after finalising this reply that I had got a call from AE Div 170 on 8/5/19 evening and a person visited my house on 9/5/19. The reply sent by PIO dated 8/5/19 was received on 11/5/19.
      Further The AE has stated that he has inspected the stretch and removed illegal banners immediately. However I have material evidence that the banners remained in the same place from afternoon till late night. Only the persons who kept the banner had removed them. So can I penalise the PIO for providing false and incorrect information. 
       

Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy