Paridhi Arya
Published on June 20, 2022 at 16:17 IST
Single Judge Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia held that penalty under Section 20(2) of Right to Information Act will not be attracted if malafide destruction of information which is asked by the Public Information Officer (PIO) is not established.
The Petition was filed as the information sought by Petitioner is not furnished by the PIO of Municipality. State Chief Information Commissioner had also directed PIO either to furnish information or details of steps and efforts taken to find out the information.
The Counsel who was representing the Petitioner (dead) through legal heir claimed that PIO didn’t abide by the decision of State Chief Information Commissioner as PIO didn’t supply information about service of Petitioner and so under Section 20(2) he should be punished to destroy such information.
The Counsel of Respondent countered the claim by stating that PIO had made efforts to restore the information but when he is unable to do so he prepared Panch Rojkam. The order of State Chief Information Commissioner is followed as it clearly states that in case the information is unavailable than supply the details of efforts made to retain information and same was done by PIO.
The Court dismissed the Petition and observed that PIO complied with the order of State Chief Information Officer. As in the order OR word is used and PIO performed the second condition of the order given in case of unavailability of information and there is no evidence to show that Panch Rojkam was falsely prepared.
The Court observed that, “The directions issued in the said order to not in any way imply that information or record is required to be given. The direction, as stated hereinabove are in two parts either to give the record OR to supply the details of the efforts made whether Respondent No.5 in tracing out the record to the petitioners.”
“Accordingly Panch Rojkam dated 10.12.2021 prepared by the Respondent No. 5 reveals that despite their efforts they are unable to find the record it is not the case of the petitioners that Rojkam falsely prepared and is concocted.”
Also Read: What is Right to Information?