Delhi High Court: In an appeal filed by appellant challenging the order dated 12-03-2024 (‘impugned order’) passed by the Single Judge, whereby the appellant’s writ and review petition seeking imposition of penalty on the officials concerned under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“RTI Act”) had been dismissed, the Division Bench of Manmohan*, ACJ. and Tushar Rao Gedela, J., dismissed the appeal and held that information seeker had no locus standi in penalty proceedings under Section 20 of the RTI Act.
The appellant had filed a writ petition and review petition seeking imposition of penalty upon certain officials, as per Section 20 of the RTI Act, alleging that incorrect replies to his RTI applications had been furnished by them.
The petitions by the Single Judge were dismissed vide impugned order on the grounds that true and correct information sought by the appellant had already been provided to him during the pendency of the writ petition. Further, appropriate action had been taken and departmental action had been initiated against three erring officials under the applicable service rules.
The appellant contended that the respondents not only provided incorrect information to him, but also caused a delay of three years in providing the correct information. It was further stated by appellant that the alleged error of changing diary number and furnishing of wrong information was noted by the respondents only after the involvement of the Court.
The appellant alleged that the Single Judge had erred by observing that the amended replies to the queries had been accepted by the appellant as true and correct and to his satisfaction.
The Court noted that the appellant had also previously filed an appeal against the same impugned order, which was dismissed order dated 16-04-2024, while granting the appellant liberty to file appropriate application before the Single Judge. It was further observed in the order that the departmental proceedings against the erring officials were already underway and the appellant ought to wait before raising a grievance of inaction.
The Court said formation of opinion under Section 20(2) of the RTI Act is in the exercise of supervisory powers of Central Information Commission (‘CIC’) and not in the exercise of the adjudicatory powers. The Courtheld that CIC was entitled in its discretion not to direct imposition of monetary penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, especially, when the information sought by the appellant had been directed to be provided to him.
The Court, therefore, dismissed the appeal, and held that the appellant lacked locus standi in proceedings in penalty proceedings under Section 20 of the RTI Act.
[Sunny Sachdeva v. ACP North RTI Cell, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4961, decided on 22-7-2024]
*Judgment authored by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan.
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Advocates for the appellant: Appellant in person.
Advocates for the respondents: Hetu Arora Sethi, ASC