Shankar Prasad Singh v. THE STATE OF BIHAR

Heard Mr. Dronacharya for the petitioner, Mr. Ram Chandra Prasad Bharti, learned Standing Counsel no.14, and Mr. Lalit Kishore for respondent nos. 2 and 3. The petitioner challenges the validity of the order dated 3.2.2009, passed by respondent no.2, whereby he has imposed a fine of Rs.25,000/- as per the provisions of the Right to Information Act 2005, (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’), for having supplied misleading informations to respondent no.6. The petitioner raises a grievance before this Court that the issue had already been disposed of by order dated 6.7.2008 (Annexure 8) by one Information Commissioner, and another Information Commissioner has entertained another application with respect to the same grievance which has been disposed of by the impugned order.

We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears that - 2 - respondent no.6 had filed an application before the petitioner for supply of certain informations under the Act. The matter was disposed of by Md. Shakeel Ahmad, State Information Commissioner, by his aforesaid order dated 6.7.2008 (Annexure 8). The order is reproduced hereinbelow :- okn la- & 8386@08&09 lqJh izHkk dqekjh yksd lwpuk inkf/kdkjh&lg&ftyk f’k{kk v/kh{kd] iVukA mijksDr okn esa fnukad 28-07-08 dks ekuuh; jkT; lwpuk vk; qDr eks0 “kdhy vgen }kjk ikfj vkns” k dk m)j.k %& “ vkosfndk izfrfuf/k ds ek/;e ls mifLFkr gSA ftyk f” k{kk v/kh{kd] iVuk mifLFkr gS rFkk mudk fnukad 5-7-08 dk i= Hkh izkIr gS ftlesa mUgksaus lwfpr fd;k gS fd iw.kZ lwpuk vkosfndk dks ns nh x;h gSA vr% okn dh dkjZokbZ lekIr dh tkrh gSA ” g0@& ¼eks0 “kdhy vgen½ jkT; lwpuk vk; qDr

It appears that respondent no.6 had filed another application seeking different information from the petitioner. She was not satisfied with the information leading to a fresh case bearing no.10353 of 2008-09, which was disposed of by the impugned order dated 3.2.2009 (Annexure 6). The relevant portion of the order is reproduced hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference:- --------------------- ftyk f” k{kk v/kh{kd }kjk mUgsa ekSf[kd :i ls nh xbZ rFkk os larq’V gSaA Jh jke lkxj izlkn flag] ftyk f” k{kk v/kh{kd] y[khljk; us viuk Li’Vhdj.k fn;k gSA muds Li’Vhdj.k esa vkosfndk ds a Hkkx ysdj mRrh.kZ gksus dh ftl vkosnu ds vk/kkj ij ijh{kk es [kcj v[kckjksa esa izdkf” kr dh xbZ Fkh] ml ijh{kk ds fo:) fn;s x, vkosnu izkIr ugha gksus dh lwpuk fn;s tkus ds fo:) dqN Hkh ekuus ;ksX; dkj.k ugha fn;k x;k gSA (emphasis added) It is thus evident that the petitioner completely failed before - 3 - the Commissioner to justify his action about non-supply of information or supply of misleading information. The issue whether or not the required information was supplied, or misleading information was supplied, is essentially an issue of fact. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the petitioner had advanced frivolous and illogical submissions before the Commission. We are, therefore, convinced about the validity of the impugned order. We are not inclined to interfere in this matter.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ( S K Katriar )