PANAJI
The Bombay High Court at Goa has dismissed a plea filed by the Secretary of the Village Panchayat of Colva who had challenged a decision by the Goa State Information Commission (GSIC) to impose penalties of Rs 5,000, 3,000 and 3,000 on him for failing to issue information under the Right to Information Act in a time bound manner.
The Secretary Amol Tilve challenged the order on grounds that orders violate the principles of natural justice because no adequate hearing was afforded to the secretary before imposing the penalties. Besides, he pointed out that the penalty proceedings were initiated during the Covid-19 pandemic, and the GSIC made no allowance for this significant circumstance.
Tilve also contended that the information sought was vague, like a fishing inquiry.
However, the information seeker defended the orders saying that there was a delay at every step and how no information was furnished despite the orders by the First Appellate Authority.
“The reasons, even assuming them to be genuine, did not prevent the Petitioner from furnishing the information applied within the prescribed timeline or at least within some reasonable time. The Petitioner either was most reluctant to furnish the information sought or was too casual about the matter,” Justice M S Sonak said in his order.
“Either way, penalties were due. Respondent No. 3 (the applicant) had to struggle to obtain the information which should have been furnished within the timeline. If, after considering the cause shown, the GSIC has imposed the penalties which, in my judgement, are quite paltry, no case is made out to warrant interference with the GSIC’s reasoned orders,” the High Court said.
“The reasons cited by the Petitioner are not valid reasons for non-compliance with the statutory timelines prescribed under the RTI Act. Based upon such reasons and by alleging some sort of malafides against Respondent No. 3, the Petitioner was not justified in not discharging his statutory duties within the statutorily prescribed timelines. The allegations of malafide are vague. The allegations cannot excuse the Petitioner from not adhering to the statutory timelines. The information sought was specific. If the Petitioner felt that such information was not due or that he did not have such information, the application could have been disposed of by saying so,” the High Court also said.
“Here, the Petitioner did not even bother to attend to the application. For all the above reasons, these Petitions are liable to be dismissed and are hereby, dismissed,” the High Court also said.
