High Court of Assam · 2022

BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE A M BUJOR BARUA Date : 06-04-2022 JUDGMENT & ORDER Heard Mr. S. K. Deori, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R. Saikia, learned counsel for the respondent being the Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission (APIC) and Mr. I. Riram, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 being the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Dibang Valley.

Considering the nature of the order proposed to be passed, notice is not required to be issued to the respondent No. 2 Vijay Pertin who is the person who was seeking certain information under the Right to Information Act (RTI).

The petitioner is the public information officer under the RTI Act in the office of Block Development Officer, Roing. Earlier there was an order dated

28.09.2021 by the APIC by which a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) was imposed against the petitioner being the PIO with a compensation of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) to be paid to the person who was seeking information under RTI Act, who in fact was the appellant before the Commission. Accordingly, as per another complaint of the person seeking information in the sixth hearing of the appeal that on 24.01.2022, the Commission directed for issuing a Show Cause notice against the petitioner PIO for his defiance in furnishing the correct information. Accordingly, the next date for hearing was fixed on 14.02.2022. On 14.02.2022, the petitioner PIO was Page No.# 3/4 absent in the hearing for the second consecutive time but on the said date he engaged one advocate Shir Kaling Taying to appear on his behalf and to submit a medical prescription regarding the illness from which the petitioner was suffering. The Commissioner by the order impugned dated 01.03.2022 arrived at its conclusion that as the advocate who appeared for the petitioner did not bring the information required by the applicant/appellant who is seeking information and further as the advocate did not carry a Vakalatnama for representing the petitioner as a lawyer therefore he is not allowed to plead. In the circumstance an order was passed against the petitioner under Section 20(2) of the RTI Act, 2005. In which a recommendation was made to the Deputy Commissioner, Roing, Lower Dibang Valley to take disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner PIO. Being aggrieved this writ petition is instituted.

We have taken note of that an order having adverse civil consequence has been passed against the petitioner PIO, although opportunity of hearing was given but on the given date the petitioner through his lawyer has produced a medical prescription seeking an adjournment of the proceeding on medical ground. The rejection thereof appears to be on technical ground that the engaged lawyer did not carry a Vakalatnama and therefore, the Commission deemed it appropriate not to hear him.

Considering it to be a case where adverse civil consequence will follow on petitioner without having an effective hearing, we are of the view that the matter requires to be remanded back to the State Information Commission for a fresh adjudication by giving another opportunity to the petitioner to produce his defence in the proceeding before him. Consequently, the order dated

01.03.2022 stands interfered and the Commission may issue a fresh notice to the petitioner for his appearance and thereafter, proceed against him as per law.