# Dr. Kalp Nath Chaubey v. Information Commissioner Central Information Commission, New Delhi and others

- **Citation:** (2010) 1 ILRA 8
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2010-01-21
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 428 of 2010
- **Bench:** Ashok Bhushan, Virendra Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-kalp-nath-chaubey-v-information-commissioner-central-information-commission-41538
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Right to Information Act-2005-Section
20-Penalty for non-supply of required
information
within
time-appellate
authority
without
considering
the
explanation
without
disclosing
any
reason
for
its
satisfaction
about
deliberate delay- imposition of penaltynot sustainable.

Held: Para 16

An authority, when exercises power to
impose penalty, is bound to give reasons
for conclusion. Merely repeating the
words given in the sections does not
satisfy the requirement of law. The
Public Information Officer may have
committed
lapse
bonafidely
or
malafidely, there may or may not be a
reasonable cause but the authority has
to advert to the cause shown by the
officer before imposing penalty, without
adverting to the relevant cause shown
by the Public Information Officer, the
penalty cannot be imposed. It is true
that Right to Information Act, 2005 is a
1 All] Dr. Kalp Nath Chaubey V. Information Commissioner and others
9
beneficial piece of legislation and the
same has been enacted to provide for
setting out the practical regime of right
to information for citizens to secure
access to information under the control
of public authority. The provisions of the
said Act has to be implemented in a
manner as to achieve its object.
Case law discussed
A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 87; A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 1984.

## Text

8 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
seeks equity, must act in a fair and
equitable manner. In Rajabhai Abdul
Rehman
Munshi
Vs.
Vasudev
Dhanjibhai Mody, AIR 1964 SC 345, it
was held that if there appears on the part
of a person, who has approached the
Court, any attempt to overreach or
mislead the Court by false or untrue
statements
or
by
withholding
true
information which would have a bearing
on the question of exercise of the
discretion, the Court would be justified in
refusing to exercise the discretion or if the
discretion has been exercised in revoking
the leave to appeal granted even at the
time of hearing of the appeal. The same
view was reiterated and followed in Vijay
Syal & another Vs. State of Punjab &
others (2003) 9 SCC 401.

10. A litigant who has approached
this Court in extra ordinary equitable
jurisdiction with unclean hands, his
conduct makes him liable to pay an
exemplary cost for abusing the process of
the Court besides wasting precious time
of the Court which could have been
utilized
for
other
more
delinquent
employee serving cases. Moreover, he is
also guilty of swearing a false affidavit.
Thus the petitioner must be saddled with
the liability of heavy cost so that in future
such thing may not recur.

11. The writ petition is accordingly
dismissed
with
cost
quantified
at
Rs.25,000/-. The cost shall be deposited
by the petitioner within two months with
the Registrar General of this Court. In
case of failure by the petitioner to pay the
amount of cost, it shall be recovered as
arrears of land revenue for which the
Registrar General of this Court shall take
appropriate steps.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.01.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE VIRENDRA SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 428 of 2010

Dr. Kalp Nath Chaubey
...Petitioner
Versus
Information
Commissioner
Central
Information Commission, New Delhi and
others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.B. Singhal
Sri Akhileshwar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I.
Sri R.R. Khan
Sri S.K. Singh

Right to Information Act-2005-Section
20-Penalty for non-supply of required
information
within
time-appellate
authority
without
considering
the
explanation
without
disclosing
any
reason
for
its
satisfaction
about
deliberate delay- imposition of penaltynot sustainable.

Held: Para 16

An authority, when exercises power to
impose penalty, is bound to give reasons
for conclusion. Merely repeating the
words given in the sections does not
satisfy the requirement of law. The
Public Information Officer may have
committed
lapse
bonafidely
or
malafidely, there may or may not be a
reasonable cause but the authority has
to advert to the cause shown by the
officer before imposing penalty, without
adverting to the relevant cause shown
by the Public Information Officer, the
penalty cannot be imposed. It is true
that Right to Information Act, 2005 is a
1 All] Dr. Kalp Nath Chaubey V. Information Commissioner and others
9
beneficial piece of legislation and the
same has been enacted to provide for
setting out the practical regime of right
to information for citizens to secure
access to information under the control
of public authority. The provisions of the
said Act has to be implemented in a
manner as to achieve its object.
Case law discussed
A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 87; A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 1984.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.)

1. Heard counsel for the petitioner,
Sri R.B. Singhal, Senior Advocate,
Assistant Solicitor General of India
assisted by Sri R.R. Khan for respondent
No.1 and Sri S.K. Singh appearing for
respondent No.4.

2. The contesting parties are
represented by their counsels. No notice
has been issued to respondents No.2 and
3, who are only proforma parties. Looking
to the nature of issues raised in this writ
petition, with the consent of parties, we
proceed to dispose of the writ petition
finally.

3. By this writ petition, the
petitioner has prayed for quashing the
order dated 16th December, 2009 by
which penalty of Rs.25,000/- has been
imposed upon the petitioner as deemed
Public
Information
Officer/Principal
under Section 20(1) of the Right to
Information Act, 2005.

4. The petitioner's case in the writ
petition is that petitioner was working as
Principal, Satish Chandra Degree College
Ballia from March, 2009 to 8th May, 2009
and was also given charge of Co-ordinator
of
Indira
Gandhi
National
Open
University, Study Centre, Satish Chandra
Degree College, Ballia. The respondent
No.4 who was working on the post of Lab
Assistant in the same College and was
also President of Shikshanettar Karmchari
Parishad, Satish Chandra College, Ballia
sought certain informations under the
Right to Information Act, 2005 vide his
application
dated
8th
April,
2009
(Annexure-1 to the writ petition). The
said application was forwarded by letter
dated 14th April, 2009 of respondent No.3
to
the
petitioner
for
providing
information. The petitioner after receiving
the said letter vide his letter dated 7th
May, 2009 informed respondent No.4 that
information has been sought as President
of Shikshanettar Karmchari Parishad,
hence it is not covered by Section 3 of the
Right to Information Act, 2005 and he is
not entitled for information. Petitioner's
case further is that Sri R.S. Pandey was
made Co-ordinator from 8th May, 2009. A
first appeal was filed by respondent No.4
in which direction was issued on 21st
May,
2009
directing
the
Public
Information
Officer
to
provide
the
information. It is not disputed that
subsequent
to
the
said
order
the
information's were provided by the
subsequent Coordinator, Sri R.S. Pandey
on 24th October, 2009. A second appeal
was filed before the information was
given, which came for consideration
before
the
Central
Information
Commissioner. The Central Information
Commissioner while proceeding issued
notice under Section 20 of the Right to
Information Act, 2005 to both, petitioner
and Sri R.S. Pandey. The petitioner
submitted his reply and the Central
Information
Commissioner
by
the
impugned order has imposed penalty of
Rs.25,000/- on the petitioner against
which the petitioner has come up in this
writ petition.
10 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner,
challenging
the
impugned
order,
contended that the petitioner, within the
prescribed time, has already sent reply
that information cannot be given since the
application was made by the President of
Shikshanettar Karmchari Parishad. He
submits that there was no delay or
mistake on the part of the petitioner. He
submits that on 12th May, 2009 the
respondent No.4 clarified that he is
seeking information as an individual and
thereafter the proceedings were taken and
direction was issued on 21st May, 2009 to
provide the information. Learned counsel
for the petitioner submits that petitioner
ceased to be Coordinator on 8th May,
2009 when charge was given to Sri R.S.
Pandey. Thus for any subsequent delay
the petitioner cannot be penalised. He
further submits that Central Information
Commissioner without giving any reason
has passed the order under Section 20 of
the Right to Information Act, 2005.

6. Sri R.B. Singhal appearing for
respondent No.1 has justified the order of
the Central Information Commissioner.
He submits that Central Information
Commissioner has clearly found that no
reasonable cause has been shown for not
giving the information, hence the Central
Information Commissioner was fully
empowered to impose penalty.

7. Sri S.K. Singh learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.4 submits
that the petitioner was the Public
Information Officer at the relevant time
and he ought to have supplied the
information and there being delay penalty
has rightly been imposed.

8.

We
have
considered
the
submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and have perused the record.

9. The question, which has arisen in
the present case, is as to whether the
Central Information Commissioner has
rightly invoked the power under Section
20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005
for imposing penalty. Section 20 of the
Right to Information Act, 2005 is quoted
below:-

"20. Penalties.- (1) 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 Office, as the
case may be, without any reasonable
cause, refused to receive an application
for information or has not furnished the
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 impose a penalty of two hundred
and fifty rupees each day till application
is received or information is furnished, so
however, the total amount of such penalty
shall not exceed twenty-five thousand
rupees:

Provided that the Central Public
Information Office 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:
1 All] Dr. Kalp Nath Chaubey V. Information Commissioner and others
11
Provided further that the burden of
proving that he acted reasonably and
diligently shall be on the Central Public
Information Officer or the State Public
Information Office, as the case may be.

(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."

10. The present is a case where the
petitioner
who
was
working
as
Coordinator after receiving the letter
dated 14th April, 2009 within one month
has sent a letter on 7th May, 2009 stating
that no information can be given since the
application was submitted by respondent
No.4
as
President
of
Shikshanettar
Karmchari Parishad and not as a citizen.
The petitioner has submitted before the
Central Information Commissioner that
on 8th May, 2009 charge of Coordinator
was given to Sri R.S. Pandey and
subsequent delay if any committed was by
Sri R.S. Pandey and the petitioner cannot
be found guilty. He submits that finding
recorded by the Central Information
Commissioner that after the order dated
21st May, 2009 information should have
been supplied by 6th June, 2009 which
having not been done, the delay has been
caused was against Sri R.S. Pandey and
the said finding cannot be made basis for
imposing penalty upon the petitioner. It is
submitted that the Central Information
Commissioner only given conclusions
that no reasonable cause has been shown.
It is submitted that even the reply of the
petitioner dated 7th May, 2009 has not
been adverted to.

11. The order in proceeding under
Section 20 of the Right to Information
Act, 2005 is an order of penalty and the
said power can be exercised only when
the Central Information Commissioner at
the time of deciding any complaint or
appeal is satisfied that without any
reasonable cause the Central Public
Information Officer has refused to receive
the application or has not furnished the
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. A perusal of the
different grounds, which have been made
for invoking the power of penalty indicate
that there has to be finding that there was
no reasonable cause or knowingly or
malafidely
incorrect
or
incomplete
information was given. The penalty
proceedings are quasi judicial proceedings
where the Commission is entrusted with
the power to impose penalty. A perusal of
the order impugned indicates that only
conclusions have been recorded by the
Commission that no reasonable cause has
been shown for not providing the
12 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
information. The letter of the petitioner
dated 7th May, 2009 by which he
informed that why information cannot be
provided has not been even specifically
dealt with nor there is any finding as
required under Section 20 of the Right to
Information Act, 2005 for imposing
penalty. There is different between
reasons and conclusions. The conclusions
are opinion formed by an authority on the
basis of reasons recorded therein. The
reasons are link between the conclusions
and materials on record. The Apex Court
in A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 87; Union of India
vs. M.L. Capoor and others has defined
as to what are the reasons. Following was
laid down by the Apex Court in paragraph
28:-

"28. In the context of the effect upon
the rights of aggrieved persons, as
members of a public service who are
entitled to just and reasonable treatment,
by reason of protections conferred upon
them by Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution, which are available to them
throughout their service, it was incumbent
on the Selection Committee to have stated
reasons in a manner which would disclose
how the record of each officer superseded
stood in relation to records of others who
were to be preferred, particularly as this
is practically the only remaining visible
safeguard against possible injustice and
arbitrariness, in making selections. If that
had been done, facts on service records of
officers considered by the Selection
Committee would have been correlated to
the conclusions reached. Reasons are the
links between the materials on which
certain conclusions are based and the
actual conclusions. They disclose how the
mind is applied to the subject matter for a
decision
whether
it
is
purely
administrative or quasi-judicial. They
should reveal a rational nexus between
the facts considered and the conclusions
reached. Only in this way can opinions or
decisions recorded be shown to be
manifestly just and reasonable. We think
that it is not enough to say that preference
should be given because a certain kind of
process was gone through by the
Selection Committee. This is all that the
supposed statement of reasons amounts
to.
We,
therefore,
think
that
the
mandatory provisions of Regulation 5 (5)
were not complied with. We think that
reliance
was
rightly
placed
by
respondents on two decisions of this
Court relating to the effect of noncompliance
with
such
mandatory
provisions.
These
were:
Associated
Electrical Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd.,
Calcutta v. Its Workmen, AIR 1967 SC
284 and Collector of Morighyr v. Keshav
Prasad Goenka, (1963) 1 SCR 98 = (AIR
1962 SC 1694)."

12. A perusal of the order impugned
imposing penalty indicates that in first,
second and third paragraphs the authority
has noted the contentions of Sri K.N.
Chaubey (petitioner) and Sri R.S. Pandey
(deemed Public Information Officer) who
claims to have joined as Coordinator on
8th May, 2009. In the fourth paragraph the
decision has been given in following
words:-

"No reasonable cause has been
shown for not providing the information.
In view of this the Commission finds this
as a fit case for levy of penalty since the
delay has been over 100 days the
Commission levies a maximum penalty of
Rs.25000/- as per Section 20(1) of the RTI
Act on Mr. K.N. Chaubey, Deemed
PIO/Principal."
1 All] Dr. Kalp Nath Chaubey V. Information Commissioner and others
13
13. The above observations in the
order is the entire discussion, reason and
conclusion of the authority. The order
impugned indicates that the explanation
given by the petitioner was not adverted
to nor any reason has been given for not
finding reasonable cause. The words "no
reasonable cause has been shown for not
providing the information" at best are
only conclusion of the authority. From the
dictum of the Apex Court as laid down by
the Apex Court in the Union of India vs.
M.L. Capoor's case (supra), the above
observations of the authority cannot be
said to be any reason.

14. The recording of the reasons in
an
order
passed
by
administrative
authority
exercising
quasi
judicial
function has been emphasised from time
to time. The Apex Court in the case of
S.N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India
reported in A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 1984 while
considering the question of recording of
reasons laid down following in paragraph
38:-

"38. The object underlying the rules
of
natural
justice
"is
to
prevent
miscarriage of justice" and secure "fair
play in action." As pointed out earlier the
requirement about recording of reasons
for its decision by an administrative
authority
exercising
quasi
judicial
functions
achieves
this
object
by
excluding chances of arbitrariness and
ensuring a degree of fairness in the
process of decision-making. Keeping in
view the expanding horizon of the
principles of natural justice, we are of the
opinion, that the requirement to record
reason can be regarded as one of the
principles of natural justice which govern
exercise of power by administrative
authorities. The rules of natural justice
are not embodied rules. The extent of
their application depends upon the
particular
statutory
framework
whereunder
jurisdiction
has
been
conferred
on
the
administrative
authority...."

15. Section 20 of the Right to
Information Act, 2005 which empowers
the Central Information Commissioner to
impose penalty has to be more stringently
observed. For imposing penalty an
opinion has to be formed that the Public
Information
Officer
without
any
reasonable cause has not furnished the
information within the time specified. The
formation of the opinion has to be on the
basis of objective consideration. The
opinion has to be formed on the basis of
relevant materials. The formation of the
opinion should disclose materials on the
basis of which the opinion/conclusions
are formulated. We are of the view that
the
opinion
as
contemplated
under
Section 20(1) of the Right to Information
Act, 2005 for imposing penalty has not
been
formulated
by
the
Central
Information Commissioner.

16. An authority, when exercises
power to impose penalty, is bound to give
reasons for conclusion. Merely repeating
the words given in the sections does not
satisfy the requirement of law. The Public
Information Officer may have committed
lapse bonafidely or malafidely, there may
or may not be a reasonable cause but the
authority has to advert to the cause shown
by the officer before imposing penalty,
without adverting to the relevant cause
shown by the Public Information Officer,
the penalty cannot be imposed. It is true
that Right to Information Act, 2005 is a
beneficial piece of legislation and the
same has been enacted to provide for
14 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
setting out the practical regime of right to
information for citizens to secure access
to information under the control of public
authority. The provisions of the said Act
has to be implemented in a manner as to
achieve its object.

17. In view of the foregoing
discussions, we are satisfied that Central
Information Commissioner having not
adverted to the relevant reply submitted
by the petitioner and there being no
reason given in the order impugned, the
order dated 16th December, 2009 deserves
to be and is hereby set-aside remitting the
matter
to
the
Central
Information
Commissioner to pass fresh order in
accordance
with
law
expeditiously
preferably within a period of three months
from the date of production of a certified
copy of this order.

The writ petition is disposed of
accordingly.
---------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.01.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJES KUMAR, J.

Civil Revision No. 482 of 2009

Shree Ram Gupta ...Revisionst/Defendant
Versus
Shafiquer Rahman & others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Subhash Chandra Tiwari

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Sri Saurabh Srivastava

Code of Civil Procedure order VI Rule 17Amendment of written statement After
17 month from the date of closing of
evidence-No
reason
given
for
not
approaching earlier amendment sought
regarding applicability of the provisions
of Act No. 13 of 1972- held not bona fide
application rightly rejected.

Held: Para -10

In the present case the evidence of both
the parties have been closed and the suit
was
fixed
for
final
hearing
and,
therefore, the trial had commenced. No
reason has been given that in spite of
the due diligence the applicant could not
have raised the plea taken in the
amendment application in the earlier
written statement. In the circumstances,
the petitioner is not entitled for the
benefit of the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17.
Case law discussed
2007 (3) ARC 410, 2009 (3) ARC 502, (2008)
7 S.C.C. 85.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.)

1. This revision is directed against
the order of the Judge, Small Causes
Court dated 3.10.2009 by which he has
rejected the amendment application filed
by the petitioner, who was defendant in
the suit.

2. The respondent filed S.C.C. Suit
No. 58 of 2004 for ejectment and arrears
of rent in which the petitioner was
defendant no. 1. The petitioner filed the
written statement and contested the case.
It appears that evidence of both the parties
have been closed on 10.7.2007 and
26.7.2007 was fixed for hearing. Further
an application under Order 15 Rule 5
C.P.C. was moved, which has not been
replied by the defendants. On 25.1.2008
the
petitioner-defendant
moved
an
application seeking permission to deposit
rent of Rs.20,000/-, which has been
allowed on 28.1.2008 and thereafter a
date was fixed for disposal of the