The Times of India: Kochi: Sunday, July 01, 2012.
State Information Commission's order asking an assistant public information officer (APIO) from Kozhikode to pay fine of Rs 10,000 was upheld by the Kerala High Court. The officer had first declined and then delayed information on RTI query by seven months.
Kozhikode tahasildar Janil Kumar, who was designated as APIO - while working as a junior superintendent at the office of Vadakara tahasildar - had declined to provide information, when P Radhakrishnan from Tharopine in Vadakara filed an application under Right to Information Act of 2005. He also added some sarcastic comments.
Following this, the RTI applicant filed an appeal before the State Information Commission, which imposed a penalty of Rs 10,000 after finding that information was declined by Kumar for no good reason. and his actions had resulted in a seven-month delay. The RTI applicant had to file a request again and wait for the answer.
Though the APIO had challenged the information commission's order before a single bench of the high court, the court declined to interfere with theorder or the penalty. After this, the APIO preferred an appeal before division bench of Justice CN Ramachandran Nair and Justice PS Gopinathan.
Disposing the appeal, the court held that the information commission and the single judge had considered the circumstances leading to the denial of the request for information and rightly arrived at a conclusion that there was wilful omission on the part of the APIO, and that it is a finding based on facts.
Along with ruling that no error was found to be rectified in appeal, the division bench reduced the penalty to Rs 5,000, considering the fact that the APIO is not a highly paid officer and that it is a first instance at his hands.
Kochi: State Information Commission's order asking an assistant public information officer (APIO) from Kozhikode, who first declined and then delayed information on RTI query by seven months, to pay fine of Rs 10,000 was upheld by the Kerala High Court.
Kozhikode tahasildar Janil Kumar, who was designated as APIO while working as a junior superintendent at the office of Vadakara tahasildar, had declined to provide information, along with adding some sarcastic comments, when P Radhakrishnan from Tharopine in Vadakara applied under Right to Information Act of 2005.
Following this, the RTI applicant filed an appeal before the State Information Commission, which imposed a penalty of Rs 10,000 after finding that information was declined by Janil Kumar for no good reason and a delay of seven months was caused by the APIO's action as the RTI applicant had to file a request again and wait for the answer.
Though the APIO had challenged the information commission's order before a single bench of the high court, the court declined to interfere with the order or the penalty. After this, the APIO preferred an appeal before division bench of Justice CN Ramachandran Nair and Justice PS Gopinathan.
Disposing the appeal, the division bench held that the information commission and the single judge had considered the circumstances leading to the denial of the request for information and rightly arrived at a conclusion that there was wilful omission on the part of the APIO, and that it is a finding based on facts.
Along with ruling that no error was found to be rectified in appeal, the division bench reduced the penalty to Rs 5,000, considering the fact that the APIO is not a highly paid officer and that it is a first instance at his hands.
.JPG)
.JPG)
