CWP-354 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Sanjay Kumar Goel State Information CORAM: Present: KULDEEP TIWARI 1. 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the order dated 15.11.2017 (Annexure P Information Commission, Haryana appeal preferred by the petitioner, under the Right to Information Act, 2005, (for short, ‘the Act’) 2. learned State Information Commission a delay in supplying the information sought for, regard has been taken. He further submits that in such circumstances, the petitioner ought to have been compensated in terms of Section 20 of the Act, by Accordingly, it is urged that the impugned order is liable to be set aside, 354-2018 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sanjay Kumar Goel Versus State Information Commission, Haryana and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Mr. Virender Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Bhupender Singh, Addl. A.G., Haryana. **** KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (Oral) By way of instant writ petition, 226/227 of the Constitution of India, a Certiorari is prayed for, to quash the order dated 15.11.2017 (Annexure P Information Commission, Haryana-respondent No.1 eal preferred by the petitioner, under the Right to Information Act, (for short, ‘the Act’) has been disposed of Learned counsel for the petitioner subm State Information Commission has delay in supplying the information sought for, regard has been taken. He further submits that in such circumstances, the petitioner ought to have been compensated in terms of Section 20 of the imposing a penalty upon the erri Accordingly, it is urged that the impugned order is liable to be set aside, IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-354-2018 (O&M) Date of decision: 02.09.2025 ….Petitioner Haryana and others ….Respondents KULDEEP TIWARI Mr. Virender Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Bhupender Singh, Addl. A.G., Haryana. instant writ petition, as cast under Articles a Certiorari is prayed for, to quash the order dated 15.11.2017 (Annexure P-9), passed by the State respondent No.1, vide which, second eal preferred by the petitioner, under the Right to Information Act, has been disposed of. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, though the has opined that there was, indeed, delay in supplying the information sought for, but no action in this regard has been taken. He further submits that in such circumstances, the petitioner ought to have been compensated in terms of Section 20 of the penalty upon the erring officers/officials. Accordingly, it is urged that the impugned order is liable to be set aside, 5 cast under Articles a Certiorari is prayed for, to quash 9), passed by the State second eal preferred by the petitioner, under the Right to Information Act, the that there was, indeed, but no action in this regard has been taken. He further submits that in such circumstances, the petitioner ought to have been compensated in terms of Section 20 of the ng officers/officials. Accordingly, it is urged that the impugned order is liable to be set aside, AMIT KUMAR 2025.09.03 19:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-354 thereby, adequately compensating the petitioner for the delayed information, in terms of the provisions of the Act. 3. perused the records. 4. ground, upon which, entire case of the petitioner is predicated adherence 5. seeking requisite info he was supplied with the information it is imperative to point out that so far as the issue of incomplete infor before the petitioner is not able to refute the abovesaid factual aspect of the matter. 6. its order, categorically recorded that the cum-Deputy Superintendent Police, Karnal, tendered explanation information law and order situation in Jat reservation agitation. explanation (supra), was found plausible by the Commission, and thus, did not impose any penalty. The relevant impugned order, 354-2018 -2- thereby, adequately compensating the petitioner for the delayed information, in terms of the provisions of the Act. This Court has heard learned counsel f perused the records. To put the entire controversy in a narrow compass, t , upon which, entire case of the petitioner is predicated adherence of Section 6 and 20 of the Act. The applicant-petitioner filed an seeking requisite information, way back on 28.02.2017, and he was supplied with the information, though after some delay it is imperative to point out that so far as the issue of incomplete information is concerned, the same before the learned Commission. Even today, learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to refute the abovesaid factual aspect of the matter. On consideration of the matter, its order, categorically recorded that the State Public Information Officer Deputy Superintendent, office of the Police, Karnal, tendered explanation that information occurred on account of deploym law and order situation in Jat reservation agitation. explanation (supra), was found plausible by the Commission, and thus, did not impose any penalty. The relevant impugned order, is extracted hereinbelow: “3. The respondent SPIO submitted that the complainants RTI application dated 28.02.2017 was received on 01.03.2017. Information was furnished to the thereby, adequately compensating the petitioner for the delayed information, in terms of the provisions of the Act. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties, and To put the entire controversy in a narrow compass, the short , upon which, entire case of the petitioner is predicated is: non petitioner filed an application under the Act, rmation, way back on 28.02.2017, and accordingly, , though after some delay. However, it is imperative to point out that so far as the issue of supply of is concerned, the same was never pressed/raised Even today, learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to refute the abovesaid factual aspect of the matter. On consideration of the matter, the learned Commission, in State Public Information Officer- , office of the Deputy Commissioner of that the delay in supplying the on account of deployment of staff for maintaining law and order situation in Jat reservation agitation. Accordingly, the explanation (supra), was found plausible by the Commission, and thus, did not impose any penalty. The relevant paragraph No.3 and 5 of the hereinbelow:- The respondent SPIO submitted that the complainants RTI application dated 28.02.2017 was received on 01.03.2017. Information was furnished to the thereby, adequately compensating the petitioner for the delayed and he short non application under the Act, accordingly, However, supply of /raised Even today, learned counsel for the , in - Deputy Commissioner of the delay in supplying the ent of staff for maintaining he explanation (supra), was found plausible by the Commission, and thus, of the The respondent SPIO submitted that the complainants RTI application dated 28.02.2017 was received on 01.03.2017. Information was furnished to the AMIT KUMAR 2025.09.03 19:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-354 354-2018 -3- complainant vide letter dated 19.05.2017 after obtaining it from the custodians of record i.e. SHO, Police Station, Ghraunda and Licence Clerk Officer of the Superintendent of Police, Karnal. Point 3 was transferred under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 Superintendent office of the Deputy Police, Karnal. The respondent SPIO explained that the information could not be furnished to the complainant within the stipulated time period due to deployment of the staff for maintaining of law and order in Jat reservation agitation. He regretted the delay in furnishing the information. 5. The Commission heard the averments of both the parties and perused the record placed on the case file. The Commission noted the averments of submissions of the respondent explained the reasons for delay. The Commission noted the explanation of the respondent SPIO. The complainant insisted to initiate penal action against the respondent SPIO for his negligent attitude. In this context, it is also important to read Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. The Section 20(1) provides: “where the … the State Information Commission, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that … the State Pu has without any reasonable cause an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub section (1) of Section 7 or request for information or 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 impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till complainant vide letter dated 19.05.2017 after obtaining it from the custodians of record i.e. SHO, Police Station, Ghraunda and Licence Clerk Officer of the Superintendent of Police, Karnal. Point 3 was transferred under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 to the SPIO-cum-Deputy Superintendent office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Karnal. The respondent SPIO explained that the furnished to the complainant within the stipulated time period due to deployment of the staff for ntaining of law and order in Jat reservation agitation. He regretted the delay in furnishing the information. The Commission heard the averments of both the parties and perused the record placed on the case file. The Commission noted the averments of the complainant and submissions of the respondent-SPIO. The respondent SPIO explained the reasons for delay. The Commission noted the explanation of the respondent SPIO. The complainant insisted to initiate penal action against the respondent SPIO negligent attitude. In this context, it is also important to read Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. The Section 20(1) the State Information Commission, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the the State Public Information Officer reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub- ection 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 impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or complainant vide letter dated 19.05.2017 after obtaining it from the custodians of record i.e. SHO, Police Station, Ghraunda and Licence Clerk Officer of the Superintendent of Police, Karnal. Point 3 was transferred under Section 6(3) Deputy of Police, Karnal. The respondent SPIO explained that the furnished to the complainant within the stipulated time period due to deployment of the staff for ntaining of law and order in Jat reservation agitation. He The Commission heard the averments of both the parties and perused the record placed on the case file. The the complainant and SPIO. The respondent SPIO explained the reasons for delay. The Commission noted the explanation of the respondent SPIO. The complainant insisted to initiate penal action against the respondent SPIO negligent attitude. In this context, it is also important to read Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. The Section 20(1) the State Information Commission, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the blic Information Officer , refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished - the 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 impose a penalty of two hundred application is received or AMIT KUMAR 2025.09.03 19:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-354 7. explanation to take a different view, thereby interfering with the well reasoned order passed by the supplied with the requisite information sought for. M sought to be achieved by virtue of the Act to the applicants, and to maintain transparency in the functioning of the Public Authorities, and not undue enrichment of the applicants 8. 02.09.202 Ak Sharma 354-2018 -4- information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty rupees; provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: The Commission observed that imposition of penalty does not follow every violation of the Act but only such violations which are without reasonable cause or in malafide. In this case, no malafide intention of the respondent-SPIO is found. The delay in providing information has also been adequately explained. After carefully analyzing the matter in issue, as also the explanation tendered by the officer concerned to take a different view, thereby interfering with the well reasoned order passed by the learned Commission. T supplied with the requisite information sought for. M sought to be achieved by virtue of the Act to the applicants, and to maintain transparency in the functioning of the Public Authorities, and not undue enrichment of the applicants In view of the above, the writ petition is .2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rovided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the , shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him:” The Commission observed that imposition of penalty does not follow every violation of the Act but only such violations which are without reasonable cause or intentional or malafide. In this case, no malafide intention of the SPIO is found. The delay in providing information has also been adequately explained. analyzing the matter in issue, as also the tendered by the officer concerned, this Court finds no reason to take a different view, thereby interfering with the well reasoned order The petitioner has since been supplied with the requisite information sought for. Moreover, the object sought to be achieved by virtue of the Act is only to provide information to the applicants, and to maintain transparency in the functioning of the Public Authorities, and not undue enrichment of the applicants , the writ petition is dismissed. (KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No information is furnished, so however, the total amount five thousand rovided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the , shall be given a reasonable opportunity ” The Commission observed that imposition of penalty does not follow every violation of the Act but only such violations tentional or malafide. In this case, no malafide intention of the SPIO is found. The delay in providing analyzing the matter in issue, as also the finds no reason to take a different view, thereby interfering with the well reasoned order he petitioner has since been oreover, the object is only to provide information to the applicants, and to maintain transparency in the functioning of the AMIT KUMAR 2025.09.03 19:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document