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

[Prasad GLN 1,761]

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

[Deepak Dang 9]

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.

[Prasad GLN 1,761]

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

[zaveri 23]

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. 

[vamsi puli 0]

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

[Prasad GLN 1,761]

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 May 30, 2018 by Prasad GLN

[garg0505 25]

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.

[Prasad GLN 1,761]

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.