'Acted As Govt Agent': Madhya Pradesh HC Fines Chief Information Commissioner ₹40K For Delay In Disclosing Info On Animal Husbandry Director

Justice Vivek Agarwal observed, “A careful perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Chief Information Commissioner abdicated its statutory responsibility and acted as an agent of the government in not examining the facts of the case in minute details. Even if 26th March day is excluded, the day on which application was made applying the principles contained in the General Clauses Act, then also thirty days' period came to an end on 25.04.2019...Therefore, learned Chief Information Commissioner's order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Order is set aside. Public Information Commissioner is now directed to supply desired information within a period of fifteen days of receipt of certified copy of the order to the petitioner free of cost.”

As the court set aside the order, the counsel for Respondent No. 2-Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suchna Ayog Bhopal submitted that the copy of the application was received on March 27, 2019 by the Public Information Officer. To this, the Court said that the application available on record bears the seal of the department showing clear date of March 26, 2019.

“This submission being contrary to the record, puts the state in a shameful position that they are not even able to read the documents correctly and advance correct proposition of fact in front of the Courts,” the Court said.

The court thus imposed a cost of Rs. 40,000  on the Chief Information Commissioner for "non-application of mind" and for forcing the petitioner to a long drawn litigation.

The court was hearing a plea filed by the petitioner against an order passed by the Chief Information Commissioner, rejecting the petitioner's application.

The petitioner had earlier approached the High Court where his matter was remitted to the Chief Information Commissioner to pass orders afresh. The court had earlier said this after rejecting the submission of the Commissioner that the application was to be made to the Directorate of Animal Husbandry but it was sent to the Directorate of Pashu Palan. The Court had stated that the two departments are known as Directorate of Animal Husbandry and Directorate of Pashu Palan in English and Hindi and thus, there is no difference between these two.

Thereafter the petitioner filed an application under the RTI Act on March 26, 2019 which was received by the authorities on the very same day. Despite the requirement of law to furnish information within a period of thirty days, Public Information Officer had not discharged his duties. Thus, the petitioner prayed that the information should have been provided to him free of cost in terms of the Section 7(6) of the RTI Act. 

The counsel for Respondent No. 2-Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suchna Ayog Bhopal submitted that though application under RTI was filed on March 26, 2019 it was put up before the Public Information Officer on March 27, 2019. Thereafter, the Public Information Officer had written a letter on April 18, 2019 to the petitioner asking him to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,12,664/ which was dispatched on April 26, 2019. 

The counsel for Respondent No. 2 submitted that the period from the date of dispatch of letter and the period within which payment is to be made is excluded from the ambit of 30 period as per Clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 7 of the RTI Act, 2005, therefore, letter being dispatched on 26.04.2019, that period is to be excluded and, therefore, the order passed by the Chief Information Commissioner was just and correct.

After hearing the parties, the Court referred to Section 7 and said, "After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, the requirement of law is that sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the RTI Act, 2005 provides that "subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 5 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a request under section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9". 

"Thus, it is evident that information is to be provided within thirty days of the receipt of the request and not within thirty days of receipt of placing of the request on the table of the Public Information Officer, therefore, first submission made by Shri V.S. Choudhary is not made out," it added. 

The Court further referred to Section 7(3)(a) which provides that the time taken by the officer for intimation of fees and the actual payment of fees by the applicant will be excluded from the 30 day period.

However, when the demand is itself is put in dispatch after 30 days as contemplated in Section 7(1) then the same will not empower the authorities to prevent invocation of Section 7(6), it said.

The court thus set aside the order. 

Case Title: Neeraj Nigam Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others, Writ Petition No. 29100 Of 2023