1 wp837.22.O.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.837 OF 2022 (Ashish Girish Bobade and others Vs. The Commissioner, State Information Commission, Amravati Bench, Amravati and others) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar’s Orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. S. M. Bhagde, Advocate for Petitioners. Mr. H. D. Futane, AGP for Respondent/State. Mr. D. M. Kale, Advocate for Respondent No.2. CORAM: R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE: 7 th JULY, 2025. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Counsel for respondent no.2 and the learned AGP. None for original complainant in spite of service of notice. 2. The petitioners have worked with Nandura Municipal Council as Chief Officer for different period. They are aggrieved by the order passed by the second appellate authority dated 07.04.2021 wherein following direction is issued: 4- izFke vfiyh; vf/kdkjh rFkk eq[;kf/kdkjh uxj ifj”kn ukanqjk ;kauh R;kapsdMs izkIr >kysyk dye 19¼1½ uqlkjpk vfiykFkhZpk izFke vtZ 45 fnolkaps vkr dye 19¼6½ uqlkj fudkyh dk<.ks ca/kudkjd vlrkuk rks vktrkxk;r fudkyh dk<yk ukgh- Eg.kwu fnukad 06-10-2017 iklwu vkti;Zr dk;Zjr vlysY;k loZ izFke vfiyh; vf/kdkjh rFkk eq[;kf/kdkjh uxj ifj”kn ukanqjk ;kaps fo#n~/k ftYgkf/kdkjh cqy<k.kk ;kauh 30 fnolkps vkr egjk”Vª ukxjh lsok f’kLr o vihy fu;e] 1982 ps fu;e 8 uqlkj nks”kkjksips tksMi= 1 rs 4 r;kj d#u f’kLrHkaxkfo”k;d izkf/kdk&;kdMs ikBowu R;kph ,d izr 2 wp837.22.O.odt vuqikyukpk Hkkx Eg.kwu vk;ksxkl lknj djkoh- 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petitioner nos.1, 4, 5 and 6 were not holding the post as Chief Officer at the time when the original application came to be filed and information was sought and was required to be provided. Thus it is his submission that these persons cannot be held to be responsible for not providing of information if any. In so far as petitioner nos.2 and 3 is concerned, it is his submission that though during the relevant period they were holding the charge as Chief Officer of the Municipal Council, the information is admittedly being provided in pursuance to order passed by the first appellate authority. In order to substantiate his submission he has made reference to the order impugned wherein it is so recorded by the second appellate authority i.e. State Information Commissioner. He has drawn attention of the Court to the provisions of Section 20(2) of the Right to Information Act to submit that no order could have been passed without giving such opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and in any case in the facts of the case such order is not justified. 4. From the perusal of the order impugned indicates that the Information Officer was considered to be responsible for providing the information belatedly to the applicant and penalty is also imposed upon the said officer. The said officer is not party to the petition and hence this Court does not wish to make to go into the merit of the 3 wp837.22.O.odt order against him. 5. As far as present petitioners are concerned, the State Information Commissioner has directed an enquiry to be conducted against them after issuance of charge-sheet. Further direction was given for submitting the compliance of the said order. 6. At this stage it will be relevant to take note of Section 20(2) of the Act which empowers the authority to recommend the disciplinary action against the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer as a case may be under the service rules applicable to him. The said provisions read thus: 20. Penalties.— (1) ……. (2) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause and persistently, failed to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall recommend for disciplinary action against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under the service rules applicable to him. 4 wp837.22.O.odt A bare perusal of this provision indicates that only when a finding is recorded that without any reasonable cause and persistently the Information Officer has failed to receive an application for information or has not furnished the information or mala fidely denied the request for information or has knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information and finally if the information is destroyed or obstructed, it shall be recommended for the disciplinary action against such person. This provision therefore, clearly requires an act of non providing of the information persistently. 7. Herein this case there is absolutely no finding recorded by the State Information Officer that the present petitioners have persistently not provided or failed to furnish the information. Needless to say that there is no allegation against the petitioners that they mala fidely denied the request for information or have knowingly given any incorrect, incomplete or misleading information. There is no question of any allegation against the petitioners that they have destroyed the information or obstructed the same in any manner. In absence of these mandatory requirements, it was not open for the State Information Commissioner to invoke provisions under Section 20(2) of the Act even to recommend for disciplinary action. Perusal of the entire impugned order does not indicate any pre-requisite being satisfied for the purpose of exercise of the recommendatory powers. 8. Having regard to the provisions of Section 20(2) 5 wp837.22.O.odt of the Act and in view of the fact that the pre-requisite of invoking the said power of hearing, the order impugned cannot sustain the clause nos.4 and 5 of the impugned order therefore, are quashed and set aside. 9. The petition stands allowed in above terms. (R. M. JOSHI, J.) NSN