Gauhati High Court
Arpana Sarmah vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors on 8 January, 2025
Author: Soumitra Saikia
Bench: Soumitra Saikia
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010000542025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/16/2025
ARPANA SARMAH
D/O- MITRA DEV SARMAH, SONAKI ENCLAVE, BONGAON PATH, P.S.
BASISTHA, DIST. KAMRUP(M), ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
OF ASSAM, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, I- BLOCK, JANATA
BHAWAN, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006.
2:THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER
ASSAM
BLOCK-C
4TH FLOOR
JANATA BHAWAN
DISPUR
GHY-781006.
3:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
I BLOCK
2ND FLOOR
JANATA BHAWAN
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781006.
4:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE UNDER SECRETARY
NIRVACHAN SADAN
ASHOKA ROAD
NEW DELHI-01.
Page No.# 2/4
5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
NALBARI DISTRICT
NALBARI
ASSAM-781335.
6:SMT. VARNALI DEKA
DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
NALBARI
ASSAM-781335.
7:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
NALBARI DISTRICT
NALBARI
ASSAM-781335
Advocate for the Petitioner : MD S HOQUE, MR. M DEKA,MS A BEGUM
Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., GA, ASSAM,SC, ECI
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA
ORDER
08.01.2025
Heard Mr. S. Hoque, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A.I.
Ali, learned Standing Counsel for the ECI, Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Standing
Counsel for the GAD, Ms. S. Baruah, learned Government Advocate for the
State, Ms. G. Hazarika, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue Department.
The petitioner is aggrieved by non furnishing of the materials sought for at
the R.T.I. Act. Therefore filed an appeal which can be disposed of pursuant
thereto second appeal was filed whereby the following observations was
passed:
"1. There is no clearien station of the official working as the SPIO in the o/o the DC, Nalbari. In the
written statement submitted to the Commission on the day of the hearing, the designation of the
signatory has been mentioned as "Public Information Officer & District Commissioner".
Page No.# 3/4
2. A copy of the order of the First Appellate Authority, albari dated 07/08/2024 of the RTI 15 Appeal
Case No -01/2024-25/Part- is attached along with the written statement. The designation of the
signatory of the above mentioned order is mentioned as "District Commissioner & First Appellate
Authority".
3. Section 19(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 is considered relevant by the Commission in regards to the
conduct of the hearing of the 18 appeal of the petitioner in the instant case. Though the RTI Act, 2005
does not mention about the office of the First Appellate Authority, the Act under section 19(1) provides
for the following.
"19. (1) Any person who, does not receive a decision within the time specified in subsection (1) or
clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public
Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may within thirty days
from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of such a decision prefer an appeal to such officer
who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer as
the case may be, in each public authority: Provided that such officer may admit the appeal after the
expiry of the period of thirty days. if he or she is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by
sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time."
4. The appellant in her 2a appeal petition to the Commission clearly states that her grievances, on the
basis of which the instant RTI petition is filed, are against one Smt. Varnali Deka. It is apparent that
the same Smt. Varnali Deka is holding the post of District Commissioner, Nalbari and that the "facts in
issue" revolve around the person of same Smt. Varnali Deka.
5. The act of the appellate authority to issue an order on the basis of hearing in the instant case in
which she herself is a party against whom allegations are levelled by the petitioner, seems to be
coming under the ambit of "conflict of interest". The position of the law as well as the Judicial
pronouncements are clear in this regard.
Section 525 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksa Sanita, 2023 states the following :
"No Judge or Magistrate shall, except with the permission of the Court to which an appeal lies from his
Court, try or commit for trial any case to or in which he is a party, or personally interested, and no
Judge or Magistrate shall hear an appeal from any judgment or order passed or made by himself."
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in spite of specific
order by the second appellate authority no subsequent order have been passed
by the first appellate authority, which has left no alternative way has
approached this Court.
Since the direction by the second appellate authority is to be
Page No.# 4/4
Commissioner in Secretary, General Administration Department.
Mr. B. Gogoi, learned counsel for the GAD will obtain instructions in the matter.
Extra copies be furnished within a course of this week enabling the learned
counsel for the respondents to obtain their instructions.
Matter be listed again on 27.01.2025.
Registry will reflect the name all counsels of the Standing Counsel for
Revenue and GAD.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
