Apka Adhikar

LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS

This petition preferred by the petitioner under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of and/or seeking appropriate order(s) in the nature of Certiorari and Mandamus or any other appropriate writ(s) for issuance of order(s), direction(s) to the respondent(s) herein directing them to quash the impugned order dated 24.11.2006, provide the information(s) sought by the petitioner herein vide his application dated 10.07.2006 under Right To Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) and impose penalty on respondent no 2 as provided under section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 for repeated violations of RTI Act thus causing harassment to the petitioner.

10.07.2006 : Petitioner filed an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act, 2005) before respondent no 2 seeking status of his letter dated 11.12.2005 with respect to non release of payment to the petitioner.

10.08.2006 : 30 days statutory period to provide information expired. Petitioner did not receive any reply to his RTI application dated 10.07.2006 from respondent no 2.

23.08.2006 : After non receipt of any reply from respondent no 2, petitioner filed first appeal before respondent no 3.

23.09.2006 : Statutory period to respond to petitioner’s first appeal dated 23.08.2006 expired. Petitioner did not receive any response from respondent no 3.

05.10.2006 : Petitioner aggrieved by no response from either respondent no 2 and respondent no 3, filed an appeal before respondent no 1.

26.10.2006 : Respondent no 1 issued notice to respondent no 2 and respondent no 3 to file comments within 15 days and also send a copy of comments to petitioner so as to enable him to file rejoinder thereto. The next date of hearing was fixed before respondent no 1 for 23.11.2006.

: Rather than replying to the RTI application of the petitioner, respondent no 2, in response to the notice of respondent no 1, again sent back a copy of letter dated 25.11.2005 to the petitioner.

13.11.2006 : Petitioner filed detailed comments in the form of a rejoinder to the response of respondent no 2 giving points of dissatisfaction with the response of respondent no 2 and also stating that he would not be able to attend the hearing before respondent no 1 on 23.11.2006 as his wife and daughter had met with a serious accident and asking that respondent no 1 may pass order on the documents available or may adjourn the hearing.

23.11.2006 : Petitioner’s appeal should have been listed before respondent no 1 but it was not listed. Petitioner was not given any information with respect to change in the date of hearing.

24.11.2006 : Without informing the petitioner, the appeal of petitioner was listed before respondent no 1. Respondent no 1 passed the impugned order stating that the petitioner had failed to file a rejoinder and that information requested by the petitioner had already been provided to him. Respondent no 1 completely ignored the rejoinder dated 13.11.06 and other documents filed by petitioner.

Respondent no 1, also, did not impose any penalty on erring respondent no 2 and 3 for not supplying information within the statutory time period.

15.12.2006 : Petitioner filed a review petition before respondent no 1 to reconsider the order dated 24.11.2006 and pass a fresh order after considering the rejoinder filed by the petitioner.

However, respondent no 1 has not yet replied to this review petition of the petitioner.

HENCE THIS WRIT PETITION.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

EXTRAORDINARY CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2007

IN THE MATTER OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005 AND ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

AND

IN THE MATTER UNDER SECTIONS 6, 7, 8, 11, 18, 19 AND 20 OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005

AND

IN THE MATTER OF QUASHING OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24.11.2006 OF THE RESPONDENT NO 1

AND

IN THE MATTER OF DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO 1 TO IMPOSE PENALTY ON RESPONDENT NO 2 FOR REPEATEDLY VIOLATING THE PROVISIONS OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005 THUS CAUSING HARASSMENT TO THE PETITIONER AND DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO 2 TO PROVIDE THE INFORMATION SOUGHT BY THE PETITIONER.

AND

IN THE MATTER OF

Shri Manoj Sarin
Oilman’s Auto Aids,
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited,
V.P.O. Nurpur Pathankot Road,
Jalandhar. … Petitioner

Versus

1. Central Information Commissioner
4th & 5th Floor, Block No. IV,
Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi 110067.

2. Public Information Officer
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited,
Bharat Bhawan, 4 &6 Ballard Estate,
P.O. Box No. 688,
Mumbai.

3. Appellate Authority (RTI)
Director Human Resources,
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. … Respondent

To,

The Hon’ble Chief Justice and
The other Companion Judges of
The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.

HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH.

1. This is a petition preferred by the petitioner herein under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of and/or seeking appropriate order(s) in the nature of Certiorari and Mandamus or any other appropriate writ(s) for issuance of order(s), direction(s) to the respondent(s) herein directing them to quash the impugned order dated 24.11.2006, consider the review petition dated 15.12.2006 of the petitioner, provide the information(s) sought by the petitioner herein vide his application dated 10.07.2006 under Right To Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) and impose penalty as provided under section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005.

2. The petitioner is a partner in M/s Oilman’s Auto Aids, Jalandhar. Between the period of 01.10.2003 to 31.05.2004, the petitioner supplied trucks to Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) on adhoc basis. The petitioner gave a notice dated 04.02.2004 to BPCL for termination of adhoc contract. While making the final payment, BPCL charged the petitioner with breach of contract and deducted Rs. 1,25,000.00 from his final payments. Petitioner made some correspondence with BPCL on this issue. However, when he did not get a satisfactory reply, he sought information under Right to Information Act 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “RTI Act”) from BPCL about the action taken by them on his grievances. When BPCL did not respond to the petitioner’s RTI application also, he approached respondent no 1 with second appeal under RTI Act. However, respondent no 1 completely ignored the repeated violations of RTI Act by respondent no 2 and dismissed petitioner’s appeal in a mechanical manner without going through the rejoinder and other submissions filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved with this order, the manner in which it was passed and the failure of respondent no 1 to impose a penalty on respondent no 2 for repeatedly violating provisions of Right to Information Act 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “RTI Act”) thus causing so much harassment to the petitioner, the petitioner is before this Hon’ble Court.

3. Respondent no 1 is Central Information Commissioner (CIC), a statutory body constituted under the provision of section 12 of the RTI Act. Respondent no 1 is responsible for hearing appeals, arising from the order passed by the first appellate authority of the Public Information Officer, and complaints filed by persons who have been refused access to any information(s) requested or who have not been given response to a request for information or access to information within the time limit specified under the RTI Act, 2005 and is also under statutory obligation to impose penalty on the Public Information Officer (PIO) where he has not furnished information within the time specified of 30 days. It is vested with the same power as that of the civil court while trying suit under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Respondent no 2 and 3 are public authority for the purposes of the RTI Act. Respondent no 2 is the PIO responsible to provide information within 30 days of receipt of application. Respondent no 3 is the Appellate Authority responsible to receive and hear appeals from people who are dissatisfied from the reply of the PIO.

4. The facts, succinctly stated, leading to the present case are as under:

(i) Petitioner entered into an arrangement for transportation with BPCL in the year 2003. However, petitioner vide a letter dated 04.02.2004 terminated the arrangement after giving the mandatory 90 days notice to BPCL. Copy of letter dated 04.02.2004 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE “I”.

(ii) BPCL, while settling the account of petitioner, deducted a sum of Rs. 1,25,000.00. The petitioner vide his letter dated 19.04.2005 asked for the reasons of such deduction. BPCL vide their letter dated 25.11.2005 replied that the petitioner did not comply with the conditions of Letter of Intent and did not submit Bank Guarantee, thus causing breach of tender conditions and on that account, they had deducted the amount of Rs. 1,25,000.00. A copy of the letter dated 19.4.2005 from the petitioner to BPCL and letter dated 25.11.2005 from BPCL to the petitioner are annexed herewith as ANNEXURE “II”(COLLY).

(iii) The petitioner, through his letter dated 11.12.2005, denied receipt of any Letter of Intent or any letter issued by BPCL asking for furnishing of Bank Guarantee . BPCL, however, did not respond to this letter of the petitioner. A copy of the letter dated 11.12.2005 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE “III”.

(iv) Left with no other option, petitioner filed an application dated 10.07.2006 under RTI Act before respondent no 2 seeking status of his letter dated 11.12.2005 along with details for not releasing payment of balance due since May 2004. A copy of this RTI application dated 10.07.2006 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE “IV”.

(v) Respondent no 2 did not respond to the RTI application of the petitioner within the statutory period of 30 days. Aggrieved, he filed first appeal dated 23.08.2006 before respondent no 3. Respondent no 3 vide their reply dated 03.10.2006 to the appeal of the petitioner stated that the information requested by the petitioner had been supplied to him vide BPCL’s letter dated 25.11.2005. A copy of the first appeal dated 23.08.2006 and reply of respondent no 3 dated 03.10.2006 is being annexed herewith as ANNEXURE “V” (COLLY).

(vi) The petitioner, as a last resort, filed second appeal dated 05.10.2006 before respondent no 1. Respondent no 1 issued notice dated 26.10.2006 to respondent no 2 and respondent no 3 to furnish their comments and send a copy of comments to the petitioner also to enable him to file a rejoinder. The next date of hearing was fixed for 23.11.2006. Copy of second appeal dated 05.10.2006 and copy of notice dated 26.10.2006 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE “VI” (COLLY).

(vii) Respondent no 2, instead of sending any para wise comments to the appeal of the petitioner, mechanically forwarded its letter dated 25.10.2005, which respondent no 2 had already sent to the petitioner in reply to his letter dated 19.04.2005. A copy of this letter has already been annexed herewith as ANNEXURE “II”.

(viii) Petitioner filed a detailed rejoinder dated 13.11.2006, in which he, inter alia, stated:

a. “That, we only want reply to para no 4, 6, 7 & 8 of BPCL letter dated 25.11.2005 (copy enclosed),
b. Para No 4: Copy of letter of intent dated 20.10.2003 along with receipt/postal receipt as claimed.

c. Para No 6: Copy of communication/ letter sent for submission of Bank guarantee and placement of fixed body truck as claimed along with receipt/ postal receipt

d. Para No 7: The copy of advice issued to us as claimed/ any show cause issued for not complying with the conditions along with receipt/ postal receipt

e. Para No 8: The date on which conclusion was made as claimed in the said para along with the name of the officers and the place at which the decision was taken.

f. That we are already passing through financial crisis
g. That, my wife and daughter had met with a serious road accident on 09.11.06 which might hamper my personal appearance at your office on 23.11.2006 as desired by your good office.

Therefore, it is humbly prayed either to take decision on the basis of documents submitted to your good office or the hearing may kindly be adjourned.”

A copy of rejoinder dated 13.11.2006 along with postal receipt dated 13.11.2006 of the petitioner is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE “VII”.

(ix) To utter surprise of the petitioner, respondent no 1, without taking into consideration petitioner’s rejoinder dated 13.11.2006 and request for exemption from personal hearing on 23.11.2006, passed the impugned order dated 24.11.2006 stating that the petitioner had not filed rejoinder and also did not come for personal hearing accorded to him. The order further stated that the petitioner had received all the information that he wanted, which was a completely wrong statement as the petitioner had not received any information, whatsoever, since he filed his RTI application.

(x) The petitioner, aggrieved by the order of respondent no 1, filed a review petition dated 15.12.2006 before the respondent no 1 praying for reconsideration of the impugned order dated 24.11.2006 as the rejoinder and other documents submitted by the petitioner had not been considered while passing the impugned order by respondent no 1. However, the petitioner has not received any response to this review petition till date. A copy of the review application dated 15.12.2006 is enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE “VIII”.

5. It is submitted that in view of the aforementioned facts, it is amply clear that the petitioner has not left any stone unturned in pursuing his application under the RTI Act dated 10.07.2006 before the office of the respondent no. 2, respondent no 3 and respondent no 1 in every possible manner but respondent no. 1, 2 and 3 have failed and / or neglected to respond in a positive manner to the various representations, requests and reminders of the petitioner herein till date. Despite all efforts of the petitioner, he has, till date, not received the following information sought by him under RTI Act, despite passage of more than 9 months since he filed the RTI application on 10.07.2006.

a) Copy of letter of intent dated 20.10.2003 along with receipt/postal receipt as claimed by BPCL.
b) Copy of communication/ letter sent for submission of Bank guarantee and placement of fixed body truck as claimed to have been sent by BPCL along with receipt/ postal receipt
c) Copy of advice issued to the petitioner as claimed to have been sent by BPCL/ any show cause issued for not complying with the conditions along with receipt/ postal receipt
d) The date on which conclusion was made as claimed by BPCL that the tender was allotted to the petitioner, along with the names of the officers who took this decision and the place at which the decision was taken.

6. That the said information is very critical for the petitioner to claim his money back from BPCL, who have arbitrarily deducted Rs 1,25,000 from his final payments.

7. Respondent no 1 passed the impugned order dated 24.11.2006 ignoring all these facts and by not considering the rejoinder dated 13.11.2006 and other documents submitted by by the petitioner, thus causing grave injustice to the petitioner.

8. That respondent no 2 and 3 repeatedly violated provisions of RTI Act, which caused so much harassment to the petitioner.

(i) First, respondent no 2 did not reply to the RTI application dated 10.07.2006 of the petitioner within statutory time limit of 30 days.

(ii) Secondly, respondent no 3 merely forwarded letter dated 25.10.2005 in response to the first appeal dated 23.08.2006 of the petitioner.

(iii) Thirdly, in response to the notice dated 26.10.2006 of respondent no 1, rather than sending parawise replies to petitioner’s second appeal, respondent nos 2 and 3 again forwarded their letter dated 25.10.2005, which they had already sent to the petitioner earlier.

9. Respondent no 1 failed to take cognizance of such repeated violations of RTI Act committed by respondent no 2 and 3. RTI Act provides for stringent penalties if complete and correct information is not provided to the applicant. RTI Act casts a statutory duty on respondent no 1 to seek explanation from any Public Information Officer, who fails to provide complete and correct information within prescribed time limits. If there were not any reasonable cause which prevented the Public Information Officer to provide the information within prescribed time, respondent no 1 has a statutory duty to impose a penalty under sec 20(1) of Rs 250 per day of delay upto a maximum of Rs 25,000 and to recommend a disciplinary proceeding against such a Public Information Officer who repeatedly violates the provisions of RTI Act, which the respondent no 2 and 3 have done in this case. However, respondent no 1 chose not to even seek an explanation from respondent no 2 and 3.

10. Petitioner would like to draw the kind attention of this Hon’ble Court to the provisions of section 20 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 which cast a statutory obligation on respondent no 1 to impose penalty on such officials who fail to provide information within prescribed time without any reasonable cause. Sec 20 (1) reads as follows:

“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 Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable causerefused 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 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 Officer 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:
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 Officer, as the case may be.”

11. It is submitted that section 20 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 clearly states that penalty “shall” be imposed. Respondent no 1 does not have any discretion while imposing penalty. Respondent no 1 has to see, only, whether there was a “reasonable cause”, which prevented respondent no 2 to provide information within time.

12. It is submitted that respondent no 1 did not even enquire from respondent no 2 why did he not provide information within time. Respondent no 1 simply condoned the respondent no 2 for its failure to comply with its statutory duty, however, it is pertinent to mention that respondent no 1 does not, under any provision of the RTI Act, 2005, have the power to condone respondent no 2.

13. It is submitted that respondent no 1 has been publicly making statements that they are not in favor imposing penalties. Below mentioned are some of the extracts of statements made by the Chief Information Commissioner in the Indian Express dated 12.10.2006 on the issue of penalty:

“Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) Wajahat Habibullah has said levying penalties on public servants found deliberately withholding information is “not the only way” to make them comply with the Right to Information Act. He is of the view that there are other ways of ensuring that they part with information that is due to citizens under the law enacted a year ago.
Brushing aside allegations that he was “gentle” and therefore there were hardly any penalties levied on officers who had failed to satisfy questioners, Habibullah, in an interaction with The Indian Express staff today, said he had a different approach to changing the information culture in the country.
“I believe in ahimsa (non-violence) in not merely turning the other cheek, but converting someone peacefully to the cause, so all types of citizens come to accept the RTI as being beneficial to them,” he said and added that if penalties, especially monetary, were imposed aggressively, too much resistance would develop. “Let’s not railroad and end in a crash. The principle objective this year has been to win over all sections of society.”
He said penalties would prompt the bureaucracy to get more defensive and therefore develop many more defence mechanisms to shield itself against the new law. The Chief Information Commissioner said “confidence was slowly building up” in how the Act benefited all. While admitting that a majority of the users of the Act were in cities and mostly government servants, who knew the law and its powers, he argued that it was the duty of ordinary citizens to exert pressure on the powers that be and maintain pressure on the system to regularly be answerable to them.

A copy of the statement dated 12.10.2006 made by the Chief Information Commissioner in the Indian Express is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE “IX”.

14. Such statements made in national media and persistent refusal of the respondent no 1 to impose penalties have emboldened the officials across the country. The officials are not only ignoring requests for information made by the citizens under the Act, they are also ignoring the notices and orders of the respondent no 1, thus rendering the RTI Act, 2005 ineffective. Respondent no 2 and 3 could repeatedly violate the provisions of RTI Act with impunity only because they were confident that no penalty would fall on them under RTI Act because of the publicly declared stand of respondent no 1 on the issue of penalties.

15. That Delhi Right to Information Act 2001 also has a similar penalty provision. Mohammad Shamim, Justice, who is the Lokayukta of Delhi, observed the following in the case of Shri Ravinder Balwani Vs Shailja Chandra and others, while deciding Complaint No. C-9/ Lok /2005

“This is well established principle of law that where the provisions of a statute are plain and clear and the legislator in their wisdom have given vent to their intent in unequivocal terms without any ambiguity, then the judges are under an obligation to interpret the same as it is without adding anything thereto and without subtracting anything therefrom. I am supported in my above view by the opinion expressed by Justice Krishna Iyer in a judgement of the Supreme Court. He opined “when the language is plainly limiting and means what it says teteology, dialectics and other tour deforce cannot be invoked to give a desired meaning beyond what the definitions ever contemplated.” A law has to be interpreted as it is, not as it ought to be or as one wishes it to be. There is another side of the picture.

Information from the government has been likened to an oxygen for a democratic society, time and again. Thus the intent behind the passing of Information Act was to provide information to the citizen on being asked as it is considered an essential component of a democratic setup. Hence the legislatures in their wisdom made it obligatory on the part of the government to furnish the information once it is sought. In case of the failure to furnish the information a penalty was to be imposed under the Delhi Right to Information Act. Thus I feel a duty was cast on the shoulders of the appellate authority to recommend the penalty, in case the appellate authority came to the conclusion that the information was not furnished or information furnished was wrong or deficient.”

“ In case no penalty is recommended, in that eventuality the defaulting officers would get emboldened and would not furnish the requisite information when asked for. Thus the intent of the legislature is unequivocal and clear. It goes to show that the recommendation for imposition of penalty is compulsory. It was in the above circumstances that the legislature used the words “shall take action against the defaulting officers concerned.””

A copy of this order is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE “X”

16. It is submitted that it is the refusal by respondent no 1 to impose penalties on guilty officials, which has emboldened respondent no 2 and 3 to such an extent that they completely ignore the applications for information and notices of respondent no 1.

17. It is submitted that respondent no 1 also failed to respond to the review petition filed by the petitioner before them on 15.12.06. Respondent no 1 neither rejected nor accepted the review petition. The petitioner has learnt from the website of respondent no 1 that they have been entertaining such review petitions from several other petitioners similarly placed, however, the review petition of the petitioner was not even replied to. The petitioner is aggrieved by this discriminatory conduct of respondent no 1 against the petitioner.

18. It is submitted that under the facts and circumstances as stated hereinabove, the petitioner has been left with no option and / or alternative remedy except to approach this Hon’ble Court under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India to file the present writ petition and seek appropriate relief(s) from this Hon’ble Court.

19. It is submitted that the office of respondent no 1 is located in Delhi, and as such this Hon’ble Court has the jurisdiction to entertain and grant relief(s) as sought for under this writ petition.

20. It is submitted that Annexure I to X as annexed to this writ petition are true copies of the originals.

21. It is submitted that the petitioner herein reserve their right to further amend, supplement such other further facts and submissions as may be deemed fit and proper and necessary in the interests of justice during the course of the pendency of this writ petition before this Hon’ble Court.

22. It is submitted that there is no equally effective alternative remedy available to the petitioner for relief as claimed and sought for in this writ petition.

23. It is submitted that the petitioner has not filed any other similar petition in the Hon’ble Supreme Court or before this Hon’ble Court or any other Courts in India pertaining to the subject matter in the present petition.

24. It is submitted that being seriously affected and aggrieved of the impugned order dated 24.11.2006 of respondent no 1 and also non imposition of any penalty by respondent no 1 on respondent no 2 under RTI Act, 2005 as stated hereinabove, the petitioner is preferring this writ petition on following amongst other

G R O U N D S

A. BECAUSE the impugned order dated 24.11.2006 has been passed by respondent no 1 without considering the rejoinder dated 13.11.2006 and other documents that had been filed by the petitioner with respondent no 1.

B. BECAUSE respondent no 1 has dealt with the appeal of the petitioner in a very frivolous manner. Respondent no 1 did not go into the merits of case. The impugned order does not mention what information was asked for by the petitioner and what was supplied by respondent no 2. Instead, the order makes a completely wrong statement that the information sought by the petitioner has already been provided.

C. BECAUSE respondent no 2 and 3 have repeatedly violated the provisions of RTI Act by failing to provide complete and correct information within prescribed time limits without any reasonable cause, thus causing harassment to the petitioner and also making themselves liable to penal provisions under RTI Act.

D. BECAUSE respondent no 1 had a statutory duty to seek explanation from respondent no 2 and 3 why they failed to provide complete and correct information within time to the petitioner. However, respondent no 1 failed to do so.

E. BECAUSE after issuance of notice dated 26.10.2006, respondent no 2 instead of replying to the second appeal of petitioner by way of para wise comments, again, sent the same letter dated 25.10.2005 which they had sent to the petitioner. This letter dated 25.11.2005 had already been replied by the petitioner vide his letter dated 11.12.2005. It is further submitted that the RTI application of the petitioner was regarding the status of his reply dated 11.12.2005 and thus, the comments of respondent no 2 submitted before respondent no 1 was not in any manner proper or complete.

F. BECAUSE respondent no 1 has a statutory duty under section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 to impose penalty on respondent no 2 and respondent no 1 failed to impose any monetary penalty on respondent no 2 for having failed to give the required information to the petitioner within stipulated time of 30 days.

G. BECAUSE respondent no 1 not only failed in its statutory obligation to impose penalty on respondent no 2 for not replying the RTI application dated 10.07.2006 but also did not even inquire as to why respondent no 2 did not respond / reply the RTI application of the petitioner within time.

H. BECAUSE respondent no 1 ignored to see that respondent no 2 failed to respond to the RTI application dated 10.07.2006 of the petitioner and respondent no 1 condoned the conduct of respondent no 2, against which RTI Act, 2005 strictly lays down provision of penalty.

I. BECAUSE respondent no 1 failed to ask and respondent no 2 did not give the reasonable cause that prevented respondent no 2 from providing information to the petitioner as under section 20 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 it is clearly laid down that respondent no 1 does not have any discretion while imposing penalty. Respondent no 1 has to see, only, whether there was a “reasonable cause”, which prevented respondent no 2 to provide information within time.

J. BECAUSE respondent no 1 has, after a lapse of almost four months, failed to respond to the review petition dated 15.12.2006 of the petitioner.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to take this Writ Petition into consideration and issue appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari and / or mandamus and / or such other writ(s) as may be deemed fit and proper to

a. quash the order dated 24.11.2006 passed by respondent no 1, and

b. direct respondent no 2 to provide information as requested by the petitioner vide his RTI application dated 10.07.2006, and

c. impose monetary penalty and` recommend disciplinary action under RTI Act on respondent no 2 for having failed to provide correct and complete information till date, and
d. pass such other further order(s), direction(s) as may be deemed fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER SHALL EVERY AS IN DUTY BOUND EVER PRAY.

Petitioner

Through

Advocate
New Delhi
Date: .03.2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
EXTRAORDINARY CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2007

IN THE MATTER OF

Shri Manoj Sarin …Petitioner

Versus

1. Central Information Commissioner and Ors. …Respondents

A F F I D A V I T

I, Manoj Sarin, aged 50 years, s/o Late Mr Om Prakash, R/o 449 L, Model Town Jalandhar presently at New Delhi, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:-

That I am Petitioner in the present case and as such I am acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the present case and competent to swear this affidavit.

That I have read the contents of the accompanying Writ Petition and the same has been drafted under my instructions and I say that the contents thereof are true to my knowledge.

The annexure I to X of the Writ petition are true copies of their respective originals.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verified at New Delhi on this the th day of March, 2007 that the contents of the above affidavit are true to my knowledge and also on the basis of information received and believed to be correct. No part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
EXTRAORDINARY CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2007

IN THE MATTER OF

Shri Manoj Sarin …Petitioner

Versus

1. Central Information Commissioner and Ors. …Respondents

A F F I D A V I T

I, Manoj Sarin, aged 50 years, s/o Late Mr Om Prakash, R/o 449 L, Model Town Jalandhar presently at New Delhi, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:-

1. That I am Petitioner in the present case and as such I am acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the present case and competent to swear this affidavit.

2. That I have read the contents of the accompanying application and the same has been drafted under my instructions and I say that the contents thereof are true to my knowledge.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:

Verified at New Delhi on this the th day of March, 2007 that the contents of the above affidavit are true to my knowledge and also on the basis of information received and believed to be correct. No part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
EXTRAORDINARY CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2007

IN THE MATTER OF

Shri Manoj Sarin …Petitioner

Versus

1. Central Information Commissioner and Ors. …Respondents

MEMO OF PARTIES
Shri Manoj Sarin
Oilman’s Auto Aids,
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited,
V.P.O. Nurpur Pathankot Road,
Jalandhar. … Petitioner
Versus

1. Central Information Commissioner
4th & 5th Floor, Block No. IV,
Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi 110067.

2. Public Information Officer
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited,
Bharat Bhawan, 4 &6
Currombhoy Road, Ballard Estate,
P.O. Box No. 688,
Mumbai.

3. Appellate Authority (RTI)
Director Human Resources,
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited.
Bharat Bhawan, 4 &6
Currombhoy Road, Ballard Estate,
P.O. Box No. 688,
Mumbai. … Respondent

Ratika Mehrotra
(Advocate)
Address: E-109, Pandav Nagar (Ground Floor)
Delhi 110092
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
EXTRAORDINARY CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2007

IN THE MATTER OF

Shri Manoj Sarin …Petitioner

Versus

1. Central Information Commissioner and Ors. …Respondents

I N D E X
S.No. Particulars Court Fee Page No.
1. Notice of Motion A

2. Urgent Application B

3. Memo of Parties C

4. List of Dates and Events D to G

5. Copy of Impugned Order dated 24.11.2006 H

6. Writ Petition along with Affidavit Rs. 50.00 1 to 27

7. Annexure I
Copy of letter dated 04.02.2004 28

8. Annexure II (COLLY)
Copy of the letter dated 19.4.2005
from the petitioner to BPCL and
letter dated 25.11.2005 from BPCL
to the petitioner 29-32

9. Annexure III
Copy of the letter dated 11.12.2005 33-34

10. Annexure IV
Copy of this RTI application dated 10.07.2006 35

11. Annexure V (COLLY)
Copy of the first appeal dated
23.08.2006 and reply of
respondent no 3 dated 03.10.2006 36-37

12. Annexure VI (COLLY)
Copy of second appeal dated
05.10.2006 and copy of notice
dated 26.10.2006 38-39

13. Annexure VII
Copy of rejoinder dated 13.11.2006
along with postal receipt dated
13.11.2006 of the petitioner 40

14. Annexure VIII
Copy of the review application
dated 15.12.2006 41

15. Annexure IX
Copy of the statement dated
12.10.2006 made by the Chief
Information Commissioner in
the Indian Express 42

16. Annexure X
Copy of order made my Lokayukta,
Delhi, in Complaint No. C-9/ Lok
/2005 of Shri Ravinder Balwani Vs
Shailja Chandra and others 43-52

17. Vakalatnama 53

(Advocate)