Jharkhand High Court
Dhiraj Kumar Thakur vs Chief Information Commissioner on 15 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 6378 of 2018
------
Dhiraj Kumar Thakur, aged about 40 years, son of Siya Ram Thakur,
resident of Giridih Block Campus, Giridih Block, P.O. Giridih, P.S. Giridih,
District-Giridih .... .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. Chief Information Commissioner, Jharkhand State Information
Commission, Engineering Hostel No. 2, H.E.C. Compound, Dhurwa, P.O.
Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi
2. Information Commissioner, State Information Commission, having its
office Near Gol Chakkar, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi
3. Under Secretary, State Information Commission, having its office at
Kutchery Chowk, P.O., G.P.O. Ranchi, P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi
4. Md. Shamim Gaddi, son of Riyazuddin Gaddi, resident of Gaddi Mohalla,
Chapa Nagar, Pachmba, P.O. Pachamba, P.S. Giridih, District Giddi
5. The State of Jharkhand
.... .... .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
For the Petitioner : Mr. Navin Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent-State: Mr. Vinit Chandra, Advocate
------
09/15.02.2021 Heard Mr. Navin Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. Vinit Chandra, learned counsel for the respondent-State.
2. This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in
view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation
arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained
about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter
has been heard.
3. Notice upon respondent no. 4 has been issued vide order dated
30.06.2020 that has been effected and vakalatnama has been filed on
behalf of the respondent no. 4. On 26.08.2020 notice upon respondent nos.
1, 2 and 3 have been issued which has been properly served as disclosed in
Flag-S. On 24.11.2020, learned Advocate General appeared and submitted
that he has got information that the Information Commission will not
appear in view of the fact that the order has been passed by the Information
Commission and the State will assist in the matter. Thereafter, the matter
was adjourned for taking instruction by the learned A.A.G.-III. Today, when
the matter was taken up, learned Associate Counsel to A.A.G.-III submits
that his Office has received letter no. 25 dated 06.01.2021 whereby it has
been intimated that the Information Commission is not inclined to contest
this matter.
4. On repeated calls, nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent
no. 4 and the matter has been heard on merit.
5. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing of order
dated 24.09.2018 passed in Appeal Case No. 639 of 2016 by respondent no.
2 whereby fine has been imposed with a further direction to initiate
departmental proceeding against the petitioner.
6. The respondent no. 4 has asked for certain information vide letter
dated 21.05.2015 from the office of the Circle Officer, Sirsia, Giridih. The
respondent no. 4 has asked to provide information under Right to
Information Act on 21.05.2015 from the Circle Officer, Sirsia, Giridih who
was posted on that point of time. The respondent no. 4 has preferred first
appeal and then second appeal on 25.06.2015 being Appeal No. 639 of
2016 and information to that extent has been issued from the office of
Under Secretary, State Information Commission vide letter dated 16.03.2016
to the Public Information Officer-cum-Circle Officer, Giridih who was posted
at that point of time to appear and to file explanation. The petitioner was
transferred as a Circle Officer, Giridih on 04.05.2016 and the charge was
taken by the petitioner on 16.05.2016 as disclosed in Annexure-4 of the writ
petition. On 21.06.2016 the petitioner provided information sought by the
respondent no. 4 contained in Annexure-5 however, the petitioner was
show-caused for providing the information lately. The matter was posted on
05.07.2016 before the Information Commissioner to provide reply under
section 20(1), 20(2), 19(8(B) of Right to Information Act.
7. Mr. Navin Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner assailed the impugned order on the ground that the information
was sought by the respondent no. 4 on 21.05.2015 whereas the petitioner
has joined that post on 16.05.2016. Thereafter, petitioner has already
provided information on 21.06.2016 itself just after joining of the said post.
He submits that that the petitioner was unnecessarily saddled with the said
compensation and direction was issued for initiation of departmental
proceeding against the petitioner. He further submits that order has been
passed on the strength of Section 20 of the Right to Information Act.
8. Mr. Binit Chandra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent-State fairly submits that letter no. 25 dated 06.01.2021 has
been received from the office of the Information Commission whereby it has
been intimated that the Information Commission is not inclined to contest
this matter.
9. In view of the above facts and considering this aspect of the matter
that the petitioner has joined on 16.05.2016 and just after his joining, he
has provided information on 21.06.2016, there is no laches on the part of
the petitioner. Power under Section 18 being supervisory in nature can be
invoked only to impose penalty under Section 20 on defaulting authority.
The petitioner after joining immediately provided the information. The
bonafide aspect with regard to the concerned authority is also required to
be looked into before passing the order of such penalty. Reference may
be made to the case of "Chief Information Commr. v. State of
Manipur" reported in (2011) 15 SCC 1. Para 31 & 32 of the said
judgment is quoted here-in-below:
"31. It has been contended before us by the respondent that under
Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the
State Information Commission has no power to provide access to
the information which has been requested for by any person but
which has been denied to him. The only order which can be passed
by the Central Information Commission or the State Information
Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of
penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order
is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of
the Information Officer was not bona fide."
32. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the
impugned judgment of the High Court whereby it has been held
that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section
18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for
access to the information.
10. As a cumulative effect of above discussions, the impugned
order will not survive, accordingly, the impugned order dated 24.09.2018 is
hereby quashed.
11. The writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Satyarthi/-
