HC quashes penalty imposed on Sanitary Inspector

Madurai

Considering that a Sanitary Inspector was not designated as a Public Information Officer, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court set aside the penalty of ₹25,000 imposed on him on the grounds that he had not provided the required details on an application made under the Right to Information Act.

The court was hearing a petition filed in 2014 by Ponvelraj, a Sanitary Inspector at Kayalpattinam Municipality in Thoothukudi district.

It is mandatory that under the Right to Information Act, every public authority should designate Public Information Officers and the Manager was designated as Public Information Officers in Municipal Corporations.

The post of Municipality Manager of Kayalpattinam Municipality remained vacant for long and also no one was acting as the Manager in charge of the Municipality. As the post was vacant, the superior officers had instructed the other officials to provide the details sought for under the Right to Information Act.

A resident of Kerala, P.M.M. Mohideen sought information under the Right to Information Act regarding property tax. He was provided the details. Not satisfied with it, he filed an appeal before the State Information Commission. The Public Information Officer was directed to provide all documents.

The relevant copies were furnished to Mohideen through his brother. Since the documents were not sent directly, the State Information Commission issued a show cause notice to the petitioner and the Municipal Commissioner as to why maximum punishment should not be imposed. A submission was made before the Commission.

The State Information Commissioner rejected the submission and imposed a penalty of ₹25,000 on the petitioner and directed the Municipal Commissioner to recover the same from the petitioner’s salary. The petitioner challenged the order and contended that the order was passed without affording him sufficient opportunity.