The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 5636 of 2010 Sarita Das daughter of Late Charu Chandra Das resident of Magistrate Colony, Sri Laxmi Tower, Flat No. 102, Near Yuvraj Palace, P.O. & P.S.- Doranda, District- Ranchi. … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Secretary, Jharkhand Information Commission, Engineer Hostel No. 2, Golchhakar, Dhurwa, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagarnathpur, District- Ranchi 3. Kameshwar Prasad, father name not know to the petitioner, D.C.L.R., Garhwa, Collectrate, P.O., P.S. & District- Garhwa 4. Baijnath Tiwary S/o. Late Pramanand Tiwary R/o Sakni-Jangipur PS & Circle- Nagar Uttari, PO Nagar Uttari, District- Garhwa, Palamu CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY … … Respondents --- For the Petitioner For the Resp.-State For the Resp. No. 4
Legal Reasoning
--- : Mr. Saurav Arun, Advocate Ms. Rinki Kumari, Advocate : Mr. Ankit Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Ankur Anand, Advocate --- 09/03.01.2023 Learned counsel for the parties are present. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: imposed upon “(i) For issuance of a appropriate writ(s)/order(s) and/or direction(s) particularly a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing of order dated 5.5.2010 (Annexure-12) passed in Appeal No. 1670 of 2009 by which the cost of Rs. 25,000/- has been the petitioner without giving any opportunity to defend her case and the order has been passed ex parte that too at the false statement given by the Resp. No. 3 and the order impugned has been passed in violation of principle of substantial natural justice as no show cause or notice ever been served upon the petitioner for appearance in the said proceeding neither any information ever been served upon the petitioner that she has been made again an Information Officer in terms of the order passed by the Commission, hence the order is illegal, void and without jurisdiction and the order impugned is also passed in violation of section 20 of the Right to Information Act 2005 as no show cause or opportunity ever been given to the petitioner in respect to the penalty which speaks the reasonable opportunity of being heard must be given before penalty is to be imposed and also in violation of section 18 of the said Act as no notice or summon has ever been issued enforcing her to attend the proceeding. 2 (ii) For issuance of a appropriate writ(s)/order(s) and/or direction(s) particularly a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing of Review order dated 20.8.2010 (Annexure- 14) by which review application has been rejected on the ground that there is no typographical mistake. (iii) For issuance of a appropriate writ(s)/order(s) and/or direction(s) particularly a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the respondents not to give effect to the order dated 05.05.2010 (Annexure- 12) and also order dated 20.8.2010 (Annexure-14), till the matter is sub judice before this Hon’ble Court. (iv) Petitioner further prays that during the pendency of this writ application the operation of impugned order dated 5.5.2010 (Annexure-12) and order dated 20.8.2010 (Annexure- 14) may kindly be stayed.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the writ 3.
Decision
petition can be disposed of on a short point of violation of principles of natural justice, in as much as, the impugned order dated 05.05.2010 is an ex-parte order. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner ceased to be the Information Officer with effect from 04.02.2010 and was not served with any notice fixing the date of hearing and consequently, the petitioner could not file sow-cause in connection with the proposed action. 4. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner was not served with notices and therefore, the impugned order imposing penalty and recommending for initiation of departmental proceedings be set-aside and an opportunity of hearing be given to the petitioner to present her case before the authority. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no departmental proceeding has been initiated so far pursuant to the impugned order. The learned counsel also submitted that a review petition was also filed, but the same was also rejected on the ground that there is no typographical error in the impugned order dated 05.05.2010. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents, though has opposed the prayer of the petitioner, but does not dispute the fact that the impugned order has been passed ex-parte so far as the petitioner is concerned. The learned counsel has further submitted that in case this Court is inclined to set-aside the impugned order so as to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, 3 appropriate date may be fixed before the Information Commission and an appropriate order be also passed for expeditious disposal of the matter. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of the admitted fact that the impugned order is an ex-parte order so far as the petitioner is concerned, this Court is of the considered view that for the ends of justice an opportunity should be given to the petitioner to present her case before the commission. The petitioner has also submitted that the required notices were not served upon the petitioner so as to enable the petitioner to present her case before the commission. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 05.05.2010 is hereby set-aside and the matter is remitted back to the State Information Commission for passing fresh order in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner as well as the private respondent shall appear before the commission on 13.02.2023. 9. Upon appearance of the petitioner, the commission shall proceed with the matter and pass appropriate speaking order after granting an opportunity of hearing to the parties within a period of four weeks from 13.02.2023. 10. Since the impugned order dated 05.05.2010 has been set-aside, no order need be passed so far as the order dismissing review is concerned. 11. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 12. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. Pankaj (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)