The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6775 of 2012 Baidyanath Prasad, son of Sri Ram Nandan Prasad, resident of Biwankhan, Post Office – Kusha Narayanpur, Police Station – Hussainabad, District – Palamau, Jharkhand, presently posted as Executive Engineer, Rural Development (Special) Division, Sahebganj, Post Office & Police Station – Sahebganj, District – Sahebganj, Jharkhand Petitioner … … Versus 1. The Jharkhand State Information Commission its Secretary, having its office at Engineering Hostel No. II, H.E.C. Campus, Post office & Police Station – Dhurwa, District – Ranchi, Jharkhand 2. The Chief Jharkhand State Information Commission, Engineering Hostel No.II, H.E.C. Campus, Post Office & Police Station – Dhurwa, District – Ranchi, Jharkhand Information Commissioner, through 3. Raj Kishore Yadav, son of (name not known to the petitioner), resident of village & Post Office – Bakuri, District – Sahebganj, … Respondents Jharkhand … CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner For the Respondents For the State
Legal Reasoning
--- : Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate : Ms. Nidhi Kumari, Advocate : Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, Advocate : Ms. Shilpi, A.C. to S.C. Mines II --- 08/20.03.2023 Learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent nos. 1 and 2 are present. Nobody appears on behalf of the Respondent no.3. The respondent no.3 (hereinafter referred to as the information seeker) had filed application under Right to Information. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief: “For quashing the order, as contained in Memo No.7865 dated 6.9.2012, passed by respondent no.1, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner has been made responsible for not supplying the complete information and, as such, the economy penalty of Rs.20,000/- has been imposed upon him in exercise of power, conferred under Section 20 (i) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.” 3. On 01.03.2023, the learned counsel for the petitioner, raised following points: - a. The records of the case clearly demonstrates that the information was sought for vide application dated 22.03.2010. b. In connection with the grievance regarding information, an appeal was filed before the State Information Commission vide Appeal No.1401 of 2010. c. The petitioner came into picture only on 15.02.2012, when he was posted in the place of the concerned Information Officer. d. The petitioner filed an application before the State Information Commission on 19.03.2012 seeking a copy of the appeal and immediately thereafter, he provided information to the information seeker. 2 e. Some objection was raised alleging incomplete information. f. It was argued that the remaining information was also provided to the information seeker stopped thereafter, the information seeker and appearing before the learned information commissioner. g. It has been recorded in the impugned order that till the date of the passing of the order, the information seeker was not provided with the complete information even when the information seeker remained absent before the learned commission to inform the commission as to whether the required information has actually been received by him or not. h. Learned counsel submitted that though the petitioner was present on the date when the order was passed, but no specific order seeking any explanation prior to imposition of penalty has been issued by the learned Commission. He also submits that learned Commission was required to be issued specific order seeking explanation from the petitioner before imposing penalty, but this procedure has not been followed by the learned Commission and therefore, the impugned order calls for interference by this Court. 4. After recording the argument of the petitioner on 01.03.2023, the matter was adjourned for the arguments of the Respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents has referred to the order sheet dated 20.03.2012 of the learned commission and has submitted that an order was passed seeking an explanation from the petitioner before imposing penalty and the matter was adjourned to 30.05.2012. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Information Commission has submitted that the petitioner did not furnish any material before the learned Commission in support of his contention that the required information was sent vide letter dated 06.08.2012. The learned counsel has submitted that the impugned order has been rightly passed and the same does not call for any interference by this court. 6. In response, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after the order dated 20.03.2012 fixing the date as 30.05.2012, much water had flown and the information was furnished vide letter dated 06.08.2012 to the information seeker which has been annexed as Annexure - 8 to the writ petition. He submits that the private respondent has not taken care to respond to the statements made in writ petition. He has also submitted that it was the duty of the private respondent to appear before the learned Information Commission to inform regarding the aforesaid development regarding furnishing of information. Learned counsel further submits that the required information was re-sent vide Annexure – 10 dated 14.08.2012 even after the impugned order dated 09.08.2012. 3 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was posted in place of the Information Officer only on 15.02.2012 and the initial application seeking information was filed as back as on 22.03.2010. It is further not in dispute that the petitioner had filed an application before the State Information Commission on 19.03.2012 seeking a copy of the appeal. The petitioner submitted some information vide letter dated 02.04.2012 to which the information seeker had objected vide letter dated 10.05.2012. It is the case of the petitioner that he had furnished the required information to the information seeker vide letter dated 06.08.2012 and thereafter the information seeker stopped appearing before the information commission. The impugned order reflects that when the impugned order dated 09.08.2012 was passed, on that date, the information seeker was absent and accordingly, it was not brought to the notice of the learned Commission by the information seeker as to whether the information seeker was satisfied with information furnished and as to whether he had any remaining grievance in connection with furnishing of information. 8. This Court finds that in the impugned order, it has been held that that till that date, the petitioner had not tendered full information to the information seeker, which was the reason for imposition of penalty upon the petitioner, although the information seeking remained absent either to confirm or dispute the submissions of the petitioner that the required information was furnished to the information seeker. In the present writ petition also, the information seeker is not appearing to oppose the writ petition or to dispute the submissions of the petitioner that the required information was already furnished to the information seeker. This Court is of the considered view that the information seeker was required to be heard before passing the impugned order and before recording a finding that the petitioner had not tendered the full information to the information
Decision
seeker. Accordingly, the impugned order is set-aside and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the information seeker so as to 4 come to a finding as to whether the required information was furnished to the information seeker or not. 9. The learned information commission shall pass fresh order after issuing notice to the information seeker and recording the surviving grievance, if any, of the information seeker in connection with information. The petitioner shall appear before the learned Information Commission either by himself or through an authorized representative on 12.04.2023 and upon his appearance, the learned Information Commission shall proceed in the light of the aforesaid observation and direction and pass a reasoned order within a period of two months from the date of appearance of the petitioner. 10. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 11. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands closed. Saurav/ (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)