Godda v. 1. The Jharkhand State Information Commissioner, Jharkhand State Information Commission, Engineers Hostel No.2, HEC
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.2235 of 2017 ------ Central Public Information Officer, Rajmahal Area, Eastern Coalfields Limited, namely Shivaji Anand Rao Yadav [Chief Manager (Personnel)], Son of: Late Anand Rao Yadav, Having its office at: Rajmahal Group of Mines, Dhankuna, Post office: Bara Simra, Police Station: Lalmatiya, District: Godda … Petitioner Versus 1. The Jharkhand State Information Commissioner, Jharkhand State Information Commission, Engineers Hostel No.2, HEC, Dhurwa, Ranchi, Post Office- Dhurwa, Police Station- Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi. 2. Under Secretary, Jharkhand State Information Commission, Engineers Hostel No.2, HEC, Dhurwa, Ranchi, Post Office- Dhurwa, Police Station- Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi. 3. Deputy Commissioner, Godda, Post Office: - Godda, Police Station:- Godda, District:- Godda. 4. District Public Information Officer-cum-District Land Acquisition Officer, Office of Deputy Commissioner, Godda, Post Office: - Godda, Police Station:- Godda, District:- Godda. 5. Deniel Hansda, Son of: not known to the Petitioner, Village Taljhari, Post Office: - Lohandia Bazar, Police Station: Godda, District: Godda 6. Deemed Public Information Officer-cum-Assistant Mines Officer, Office of Deputy Commissioner, Godda, Post Office:- Godda, Police Station:- Godda, District:- Godda. … Respondents For the Petitioner For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
------ : Mr. Rajesh Lala, Advocate : Mr. Krishna Prajapati, Advocate 1 W.P.(C) No.2235 of 2017 Mr. Abhay Kr. Mishra, Advocate Mr. S. K. Piprawall, Advocate Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for quashing the entire proceeding pertaining to Appeal No.1287 of 2012 pending before the Jharkhand State Information Commission, Ranchi and for quashing the orders dated 16.12.2013 and 17.08.2016 (kept at Annexure-13 and 16 of this Writ Petition respectively) passed in the said Appeal No.1287 of 2012 whereby the petitioner who is the Central Public Information Officer, Rajmahal Area, has been directed to pay penalty of Rs.20,000/- each. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court towards Section 19 (8) (b) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and submits that the impugned order dated 17.08.2016 passed in Appeal No.1287 of 2012, copy of which has been kept at Annexure-16 of this Writ Petition, has been passed by the Information Commissioner in purported exercise of the power under Section 19 (8) (b) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. It is then submitted that under Section 19 (8) (b) of the said Act, the Central Information Commission or the Jharkhand State Information Commission may require the Public Authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered. It is next submitted that there is a distinction between “Central Public Information Officer” as defined in Section 2 (c) of the Right to 2 W.P.(C) No.2235 of 2017 Information Act, 2005 and “Public Authority” which has been defined under Section 2 (h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Hence, it is submitted that the direction for payment of compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the petitioner who is a Central Public Information Officer, is not sustainable in law. It is further submitted that since the petitioner is a Central Public Information Officer, Second Appeal against his order ought to have been filed before the Central Information Commission and State Information Commission has no jurisdiction to impose any penalty upon a Central Public Information Officer and on this count also, the order dated 17.08.2016 passed, is not sustainable in law on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the State Information Commission to entertain an appeal in respect of any act of omission or commission committed by the Central Public Information Officer. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer made in this Writ Petition, be allowed. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that this is not a case simpliciter where Second Appeal filed against the order of act of omission or commission of the Central Public Information Officer alone. It is next submitted that in this case, the information was sought from the District Public Information Officer, Godda; who is a State Public Information Officer and as the information sought was held by the petitioner and the subject matter in respect of the information, was sought more closely connected with the function of the petitioner, hence, the District Public Information Officer, Godda transferred the application seeking information by the respondent No.2 through the petitioner and the appeal was initially filed against the District 3 W.P.(C) No.2235 of 2017 Public Information Officer, Godda. So, under such facts of the case, the State Commission has the jurisdiction to entertain the appeal but later on as it appeared to the State Commission while being in seisin of the matter that the petitioner has not supplied the information and accordingly it has passed an order of compensation to be paid by the petitioner, hence, there is no illegality involved in the orders passed by the State Information Commission. It is then submitted that under such facts of the case the question of lack of jurisdiction of the State Information Commission, does not arise. Hence, it is submitted that this Writ Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 5. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that as has rightly been submitted by the learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner that since the State Information Commissioner vide the said order dated 17.08.2016 in Appeal No.1287 of 2012 has passed an order of compensation, obviously the same could have been passed only in exercise of the power vested upon it under Section 19 (8) (b) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and under such provision the “Public Authority” can only be required to compensate the complainant and certainly the “Central Public Information Officer” cannot be directed to pay compensation. It is made clear that “compensation” to be paid to the persons seeking information is different from “penalty” under the provisions of the Right to Information Act. Whereas, the provision for payment of compensation is there in Section 19 (8) (b) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, but the power of direction for payment of such compensation can only be given to “Public authority”. There is provision for 4 W.P.(C) No.2235 of 2017 imposition of penalty in Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005; but perusal of the impugned order reveals that the State Information Commission has directed for payment of compensation but has not imposed any penalty. 6. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that since the petitioner who is not a “Public Authority” as defined under Section 2 (h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 rather is a “Central Public Information Officer“ as defined under Section 2 (c) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Hence, the order dated 17.08.2016 passed in Appeal No.1287 of 2012 is not sustainable in law; purportedly having been passed under Section 19 (8) (b) of the Right to Information Act, 2005; without jurisdiction because, as already indicated above, the said Section 19 (8) (b) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 does not empower the State Information Commission, to direct to the “Central Public Information Officer” to pay compensation. 7. Accordingly, the same is quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Jharkhand State Information Commission to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after giving opportunity of being heard to the parties. 8. So far as the jurisdiction of the Jharkhand State Information Commission to entertain the appeal is concerned, as has rightly been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 that this is a case where the act of omission or commission of two Public Information Officers i.e. one Central Public Information Officer and another State Public Information Officer are involved and such issue of jurisdiction was never raised before the Jharkhand State Information Commission. This Court keeps the contention of the 5 W.P.(C) No.2235 of 2017 petitioner regarding lack of jurisdiction of the State Commission to entertain any Second Appeal against it; open to be decided by the State Commissioner, if at all, the same is raised before the State Commission. 9.
Decision
This Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 13th of June, 2024 AFR/ Animesh 6 W.P.(C) No.2235 of 2017