The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No.6324 of 2016 ---- Shivaji Baitha, S/o Late Akshaylal Baitha At- C/403 Gokuldham-Harihar Singh Road, P.O.-Ranchi University, P.S.Bariyatu, Dist-Ranchi …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Chief Information Commissioner through the Secretary, State Information Commission, at Engineering Hostel near Golchakkar, H.E.C. premises, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Dist-Ranchi 3. Principal Secretary, Drinking Water and Sanitation Departmetnt, at Nepal House, P.O.+P.S.-Doranda, Dist-Ranchi 4. The Deputy Commissioner, at P.O.+P.S.+Dist-Jamtara 5. The Deputy Secretary Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, at Nepal House, P.O.+P.S.-Doranda, Dist-Ranchi 6. Chintamani Mandal, S/o not known to petitioner, at-Rajpalli, P.O.+P.S.+Dist.-Jmatara …. …. Respondents
Legal Reasoning
---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ---- For the Petitioner For the Resp.-State For the Resp.-JSIC 08/Dated: 31st July, 2024 : Mrs. Rakhi Rani, Adv. : Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, AC to SC-IV : Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Adv. : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Adv. ---- 1. In spite of valid service of notice, nobody appears on behalf of respondent No.6. 2. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- (a) For issuance of appropriate Writ/Writs, Order/Orders, Direction/Directions or a writ in the nature of mandamns for quashing the impugned orders passed by the Information Commissioner in Appeal Case No 874/2014 of the Information Commission State of Jharkhand on dated 12.01.2016 as contained at Annexure-7 vide which the petitioner being the Executive Engineer of Drinking Water And Sanitation Division, Jamtara had been inflicted with a fine of Rs. 25000/- and to make payment compensation amounting to RS. 30,000/- to the applicant namely Chintamani Mandal Respondent no-6 for non supply of information sought by him under wrong reference of Rule 20(1) and 19 (8) (b) of the Right to Information Act and further to quash the impugned order dated 18-04-2016 (Annexure-9) passed by the Information Commissioner by which request of the petitioner to review the order of punishment was denied as no such provision is contained in the Right to Information Act. (b) For issuance of further Writ(S)/Order(S)/ Direction (S) for quashing the orders passed by Deputy Secretary cum Public Information Officer of Drinking Water and Sanitation Department. Vide impugned Letter no 4452 dated 30.09.2016 (Annexure-12) by which the petitioner has been ordered to comply and pay the amount of fine and compensation as contained in orders of the State Information Commission without ascertaining the guilt of the petitioner arbitrarily and mechanically. (c) During the pendency of this writ petition the impugned order of punishment as contained at Annexure-7, Annexures-9 and Annexure- 12 may be kept in abeyance/stayed till final disposal of this case.” 4. The impugned order dated 12.01.2016 passed by the Information Commissioner in Appeal Case No 874/2014 is quoted hereinbelow:- अपीलवाद सं०874/2014 कामरेड िनवासी नाम जन सूचना पदािधकारी, काय(cid:6981)पालक अिभयंता, पेयजल एवं (cid:7021)व(cid:6994)छता (cid:7079)मंडल, जामताडा । 12.01.16 अिभलेख सुनवाई हेतु उप(cid:7021)थािपत (cid:7408)कया गया। उगय प(cid:6979) अनुपि(cid:7021)थत है। अिभलेख के अवलोकन से (cid:7079)तीत होता है (cid:7408)क अपीलकता(cid:6981) का सूचना उपल(cid:7011)ध कराने के संबंध म(cid:7286) जन सूचना पदािधकारी (cid:7367)ारा कोई सा(cid:7023)य (cid:7079)(cid:7021)तुत नह(cid:7277) (cid:7408)कया गया है। जन सूचना पदािधकारी सह काय(cid:6981)पालक अिभयंता, पेयजल एवं (cid:7021)व(cid:6994)छता (cid:7079)मंडल, जामताड़ा के िव(cid:7272)(cid:7373) अपीलकता(cid:6981) को अनाव(cid:7019)यक परेशान करने के कारण धारा 19 (8) (B) के तहत 30,000/- (cid:7272)० (cid:6979)ितपू(cid:7414)त(cid:6981) देने का आदेश पा(cid:7407)रत (cid:7408)कया जाता है । धारा 20 (1) के तहत 25,000/- (cid:7272)० का अ(cid:7414)थ(cid:6981)क द(cid:7003)ड क(cid:7409) रािश जन सूचना पदािधकारी के मािसक वेतन से पांच हजार (cid:7272)० क(cid:7409) दर से पांच बराबर (cid:7408)क(cid:7021)त(cid:7298) म(cid:7286) माच(cid:6981) 2016 के वेतन से कटौती क(cid:7409) जायेगी। 30,000/- (cid:7272)० क(cid:7409) (cid:6979)ितपू(cid:7414)त(cid:6981) 2 W.P. (C) No.6324 of 2016 क(cid:7409) रािश ब(cid:7289)क (cid:7071)ा(cid:7010)ट के मा(cid:7007)यम से अपीलकता(cid:6981) के पते पर भेज(cid:7286) एवं िनधा(cid:6981)(cid:7407)रत ितिथ के पूव(cid:6981) अपीलकता(cid:6981) को सूचना भी उपल(cid:7011)ध कराय(cid:7286)। आदेष क(cid:7409) (cid:7079)ित िजला कोषांग पदािधकारी जामताड़ा/जन सूचना पदािधकारी सह काय(cid:6981)पालक अिभयंता पेयजल एवं (cid:7021)व(cid:6994)छता (cid:7079)मंडल जामताड़ा / कामरेड िच(cid:7008)तामणी मंडल. राजप(cid:7016)ली. जामताड़ा को भेजी जाय। इस अपील क(cid:7409) अगली सुनवाई (cid:7408)दनांक 18.04.16 िनधा(cid:6981)(cid:7407)रत क(cid:7409) जाती है। सूचना आयु(cid:7334) रांची (cid:6980)ापांक 2690/ (cid:7408)दनांक 27.01.2016 5. It appears that order has been passed under Section 20(1) and 19 (8)(B) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. 6. Section 20(1) and 19 (8)(B) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 are quoted hereinbelow:- Section 20.(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. Section 19. (8).(b)- require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered. 7. So far as Section 20 (1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 is concerned, the law is clear that if the information is not granted within the 3 W.P. (C) No.6324 of 2016 time frame, the fine can be imposed. But it is a settled law that any order can be passed only after initiating a proceeding. Proceeding is sine qua non as it gives jurisdiction to the Authority. For imposing a fine, a separate show cause notice has to be issued against the petitioner and finding has to be recorded that one or other particular individual is responsible for non-supply of the information. 8. It appears that this exercise has not been done by the Information Commissioner. Accordingly, the fine of Rs.25,000/- imposed under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 is, hereby, quashed and set aside. So far as the compensation of Rs.30,000/- imposed under Section 19(8)(b) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 is concerned, it is nothing but chatipurti ((cid:6979)ितपू(cid:7414)त(cid:6981)). Chati ((cid:6979)ित) has to be assessed then it can be Purti (पू(cid:7414)त(cid:6981)). There is no assessment of the loss so there is no concept of compensation. Thus, here also the authority has passed the order in mechanical manner without following the due process of law. 9. In view of above discussion, the order dated 12.01.2016 passed by the Information Commissioner State of Jharkhand in Appeal Case No 874/2014, order dated 18-04-2016 (Annexure-9) passed by the Information Commissioner and Letter No. 4452 dated 30.09.2016 passed by Deputy Secretary cum Public Information Officer of Drinking Water and Sanitation Department Jharkhand, Ranchi are, hereby, quashed and set aside. 10. With the above observation, the present writ petition stands allowed
Decision
and disposed of. Shahid- Uploaded (Rajesh Kumar, J.) 4 W.P. (C) No.6324 of 2016