CWP-21567 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA (204) Arun Kumar Aggarwal State Information Commission, Haryana and others CORAM: Present: KULDEEP TIWARI 1. order dated 13.10.2020 (Annexure P No.1-State Information Commission, Haryana Rs.25,000/- State Public Information Officer (SPIO), concerned. 2. Constitution of India, seeking quashing of the order dated 13.10.2020 (Annexure P 21567-2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Arun Kumar Aggarwal Versus State Information Commission, Haryana and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Mr. Arjun Kundra, Advocate and Mr. Aniket Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate for respondents No.3 to 5. Mr. Aaryan Kargwal, Advocate for Mr. Navkesh Singh, Advocate for respondent No.6. None for respondent No.7, despite service **** KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL) The main grievance, which is raised before this Court, is that order dated 13.10.2020 (Annexure P-15), has been State Information Commission, Haryana has been imposed upon the petit State Public Information Officer (SPIO), concerned. The instant petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashing of the order dated 13.10.2020 (Annexure P-15), as well as, order dated 11.09.2015 (Annexure P 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-21567-2020 Date of Decision : 05.09.2025 …Petitioner State Information Commission, Haryana and others ...Respondents KULDEEP TIWARI Arjun Kundra, Advocate and Mr. Aniket Aggarwal, Advocate Panwar, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Aaryan Kargwal, Advocate for , despite service. , which is raised before this Court, is that has been passed by the respondent State Information Commission, Haryana, wherethrough, the penalty of has been imposed upon the petitioner, considering him to be the State Public Information Officer (SPIO), concerned. The instant petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashing of the order dated 13.10.2020 order dated 11.09.2015 (Annexure P-9), passed , which is raised before this Court, is that an passed by the respondent , wherethrough, the penalty of ioner, considering him to be the The instant petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashing of the order dated 13.10.2020 , passed MANPREET SINGH 2025.09.06 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-21567 by the respondent No.1, wherethrough, the application of the petitioner for modification of the order dated 10.08.2015, was dismissed quashing of penalty of Rs.25,000/ 3. Annexure P was appointed as SPIO on 25.05 delay was applicant/respondent No.7 respondent No.6, was the SPIO concerned. petitioner has also filed an application Commission, bringing all the facts penalty of Rs.25,000/ not decided, and the petitioner has filed CWP which was disposed of, vide order dated that the application pending before the State Commission, be decided as per law, if found maintainable. The 21567-2020 by the respondent No.1, wherethrough, the application of the petitioner for modification of the order dated 10.08.2015, was dismissed quashing of order dated 10.08.2015 (Annexure P penalty of Rs.25,000/-, was sought to be recovered from the petitioner. While drawing the attention of this Court towards Annexure P-6/A, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that was appointed as SPIO on 25.05.2015, whereas, caused in supplying the requisite information to the applicant/respondent No.7, the petitioner was not the SPIO, rather the respondent No.6, was the SPIO concerned. petitioner has also filed an application Commission, bringing all the facts, and to modify the order of imposition of penalty of Rs.25,000/-, upon the petitioner. However, th , and the petitioner has filed CWP which was disposed of, vide order dated 06.11.2017, with the observations the application pending before the State Commission, be decided as per law, if found maintainable. The relevant is extracted hereinafter : “Petitioner has posed a challenge to order passed by the State Information Commission, Haryana, whereby penalty of Rs.25,000/- has been imposed upon him. His plea is that on the relevant date, he was not the SPIO. He filed application (Annexure P order. According to him, same has not been decided. Petition is disposed of with the observation that in case application (Annexure P Commission, same be maintainable. Same be decided expeditiously, preferably within one month.” 2 by the respondent No.1, wherethrough, the application of the petitioner for modification of the order dated 10.08.2015, was dismissed, and further order dated 10.08.2015 (Annexure P-7), wherethrough, the , was sought to be recovered from the petitioner. While drawing the attention of this Court towards 6/A, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner .2015, whereas, at the relevant time, when the caused in supplying the requisite information to the , the petitioner was not the SPIO, rather the respondent No.6, was the SPIO concerned. He further submits that the petitioner has also filed an application before the State Information , and to modify the order of imposition of , upon the petitioner. However, the said application was , and the petitioner has filed CWP-24710-2017, before this Court, 06.11.2017, with the observations the application pending before the State Commission, be decided as per relevant is extracted hereinafter :- “Petitioner has posed a challenge to order passed by the State Information Commission, Haryana, whereby penalty has been imposed upon him. His plea is that on the relevant date, he was not the SPIO. He has already filed application (Annexure P-15) for modification of the order. According to him, same has not been decided. Petition is disposed of with the observation that in case application (Annexure P-15) is pending before the State Commission, same be decided as per law, if found maintainable. Same be decided expeditiously, preferably by the respondent No.1, wherethrough, the application of the petitioner for further , the While drawing the attention of this Court towards the petitioner at the relevant time, when the caused in supplying the requisite information to the , the petitioner was not the SPIO, rather the He further submits that the before the State Information , and to modify the order of imposition of e said application was , before this Court, 06.11.2017, with the observations the application pending before the State Commission, be decided as per “Petitioner has posed a challenge to order passed by the State Information Commission, Haryana, whereby penalty has been imposed upon him. His plea is that has already 15) for modification of the Petition is disposed of with the observation that in case 15) is pending before the State decided as per law, if found maintainable. Same be decided expeditiously, preferably MANPREET SINGH 2025.09.06 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-21567 4. speaking order was passed by the Commission concerned. 5. learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. has passed the hereinafter extracted direction, while deciding the appeal preferred by the appli 21567-2020 Thereupon, the said application speaking order was passed by the Commission concerned. This Court has considered the submissions, as made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. On 10.08.2015, the Chief Information Commissioner, Haryana, has passed the hereinafter extracted direction, while deciding the appeal preferred by the applicant/respondent No.7 : “4. In view of the above findings the matter is decided as under: (I) A penalty of Rs. 25000/ Only) Is Imposed upon the SPIO Attorney (HQ) office of the Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula to mee RTI Act, 2005 which shall be recovered in four installments from his salary and deposited into the Head of Account "0070 Services-60-Other Service Fee under the Right to Information Act, 2 can be deposited by sending demand draft to the Commission in favour of Account Officer, State Information Commission, Haryana payable at Chandigarh within four mon order. (II) The SPIO-cum-Estate Officer, HUDA, Sirsa shall supply another copy of Information through registered post alongwith authenticated documents which he supplied vide letter dated 04.03.2015 to the appellant within two weeks from the receipt of this order. He shall send a compliance report thereafter to the Commission latest by 09.09.2015. (III) In case the appellant is not satisfied with the documents received from the SPIO Officer, HUDA, Sirsa he can visit his office after 3 Thereupon, the said application was simply consigned and no speaking order was passed by the Commission concerned. This Court has considered the submissions, as made by the On 10.08.2015, the Chief Information Commissioner, Haryana, has passed the hereinafter extracted direction, while deciding the appeal cant/respondent No.7 :- “4. In view of the above findings the matter is decided as A penalty of Rs. 25000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand Only) Is Imposed upon the SPIO-cum-District Attorney (HQ) office of the Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula to meet the requirements of the RTI Act, 2005 which shall be recovered in four installments from his salary and deposited into the Head of Account "0070-Other Administrative Other Service-800-Other Receipt- Fee under the Right to Information Act, 2005"or It can be deposited by sending demand draft to the Commission in favour of Account Officer, State Information Commission, Haryana payable at Chandigarh within four month of the receipt of this Estate Officer, HUDA, Sirsa shall pply another copy of Information through registered post alongwith authenticated documents which he supplied vide letter dated 04.03.2015 to the appellant within two weeks from the receipt of this order. He shall send a compliance report thereafter Commission latest by 09.09.2015. In case the appellant is not satisfied with the documents received from the SPIO-cum-Estate Officer, HUDA, Sirsa he can visit his office after and no This Court has considered the submissions, as made by the On 10.08.2015, the Chief Information Commissioner, Haryana, has passed the hereinafter extracted direction, while deciding the appeal “4. In view of the above findings the matter is decided as (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand District Attorney (HQ) office of the Chief Administrator, t the requirements of the RTI Act, 2005 which shall be recovered in four installments from his salary and deposited into the Other Administrative -86 005"or It can be deposited by sending demand draft to the Commission in favour of Account Officer, State Information Commission, Haryana payable at th of the receipt of this Estate Officer, HUDA, Sirsa shall pply another copy of Information through registered post alongwith authenticated documents which he supplied vide letter dated 04.03.2015 to the appellant within two weeks from the receipt of this order. He shall send a compliance report thereafter In case the appellant is not satisfied with the Estate Officer, HUDA, Sirsa he can visit his office after MANPREET SINGH 2025.09.06 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-21567 7. learned counsel for already been supplied to the applicant/respondent No.7. perused the order dated 11.09.2015 (Annexure P on account of absence of the petitioner before the Commission proceeded to impose the penalty. 8. retired from his services, upon attaining the age of superannuation. Even, the respondent No.6, who was the SPIO concerned, at the relevant time, has also retired. The requisite information has already been supplied to the applicant/respondent No.7. 9. wherethrough, the penalty of Rs.25,000/ modified, to the extent that the said penalty is waived off. 10. September 05 Manpreet 21567-2020 giving prior Intimation for inspection of record and obtain identified informati free of cost. (IV) The Commission's Secretariat is directed to send a copy of the order to the Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula for ensuring the implementation of the order by recovering the amount of penalty from the concerned SPIO as ordered above.” It is informed to this Court, and which learned counsel for respondents No.3-HSVP already been supplied to the applicant/respondent No.7. perused the order dated 11.09.2015 (Annexure P on account of absence of the petitioner before the Commission proceeded to impose the penalty. It is also informed to this Court retired from his services, upon attaining the age of superannuation. Even, the respondent No.6, who was the SPIO concerned, at the relevant time, has also retired. The requisite information has already been supplied to the applicant/respondent No.7. In view of the above, the order dated wherethrough, the penalty of Rs.25,000/- was imposed, upon the petitioner, is modified, to the extent that the said penalty is waived off. Consequently, the instant writ petition is September 05, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 4 giving prior Intimation for inspection of record and obtain identified information restricted to 20 pages The Commission's Secretariat is directed to send a copy of the order to the Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula for ensuring the implementation of the order by recovering the amount of penalty from the O as ordered above.” and which is also not disputed by the HSVP, that the requisite information has already been supplied to the applicant/respondent No.7. This Court has also perused the order dated 11.09.2015 (Annexure P-9), wherethrough, primarily on account of absence of the petitioner before the Commission, the latter has It is also informed to this Court that the petitioner has already retired from his services, upon attaining the age of superannuation. Even, the respondent No.6, who was the SPIO concerned, at the relevant time, has also retired. The requisite information has already been supplied to the In view of the above, the order dated 10.08.2015 (Annexure P- was imposed, upon the petitioner, is modified, to the extent that the said penalty is waived off. Consequently, the instant writ petition is disposed of. (KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No giving prior Intimation for inspection of record and on restricted to 20 pages The Commission's Secretariat is directed to send a copy of the order to the Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula for ensuring the implementation of the order by recovering the amount of penalty from the not disputed by the , that the requisite information has also primarily , the latter has lready retired from his services, upon attaining the age of superannuation. Even, the respondent No.6, who was the SPIO concerned, at the relevant time, has also retired. The requisite information has already been supplied to the -7), was imposed, upon the petitioner, is MANPREET SINGH 2025.09.06 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment