Court affirms penalty for Naib Tahsildar in RTI Act case, upholding second appellate authority decision

The court upheld the decision of the second appellate authority in a writ petition challenging an order passed by the State Information Officer under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The petitioner, a Naib Tahsildar, was not held responsible for providing information directly, as it pertained to other officials. The court found the penalty imposed on the petitioner to be justified, considering the petitioner's actions and providing an opportunity for defense. Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the reasonableness of the second appellate authority's decision based on the evidence presented.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order passed by State Information Officer under Right to Information Act, 2005; Allegation of wrong remedy chosen by respondent; Imposition of penalty on petitioner; Non-consideration of first appeal by respondent; Review of order by petitioner pending before respondent; Responsibility of Naib Tahsildar in providing information; Allegation of penalty being exorbitant; Non-consideration of provisions of the Act by respondent; Lack of reasonable opportunity of hearing before imposing penalty; Transfer of application under Section 6 of the Act; Failure to forward application promptly to concerned authorities.

Analysis:
The judgment concerns a writ petition challenging an order passed by the State Information Officer under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The petitioner, a Naib Tahsildar, received an application for information from respondent No. 2, which was forwarded to the concerned Talathi and Block Development Officer for necessary action. However, respondent No. 2 chose the wrong remedy by filing a second appeal instead of a first appeal. The petitioner argued that he cannot be held responsible for providing the information directly as it pertains to other officials. The petitioner also contended that the penalty imposed was excessive and contrary to the Act's provisions.

The petitioner's counsel highlighted the provisions of Section 5 of the Act, emphasizing the roles of Talathi and B.D.O. in providing information. The petitioner's representation for a review of the order had not been decided by the respondent. The counsel argued that the petitioner, as a Naib Tahsildar, is not obligated to provide information directly without receiving it from the relevant authorities. The petitioner's submission was supported by entries in the Register maintained under the RTI Act, showing the timely forwarding of the application to the appropriate officers.

The respondent argued that the penalty imposed was justified, and the court should not interfere with the order. The court carefully considered the submissions and relevant provisions of the Act. Section 6 of the Act was analyzed, emphasizing the requirement to promptly transfer applications to the relevant authorities. The court noted discrepancies in the forwarding of the application, as it was not done promptly as required by the Act.

The court addressed the petitioner's contention regarding the first appeal and the responsibility of B.D.O. and Talathi in providing information. The court observed that the petitioner could have supplied the information sought by respondent No. 2 based on the material on record. The court found that the penalty was imposed after considering the petitioner's actions and providing an opportunity for the petitioner to present his case. Ultimately, the court upheld the decision of the second appellate authority, finding it reasonable and based on the material placed on record, and dismissed the writ petition.

---