Kumari Ranjana vs The State Of Jharkhand & Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 3885 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  (Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
                 W.P. (C) No. 3569 of 2012
                         ........

Kumari Ranjana                         ....   ..... Petitioner
                              Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Others         ....  ..... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO ............

For the Petitioner : Mr. Arbind Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent / State : Mr. Sandeep Verma, A.C. to Mrs. Vandana Singh, Sr. S.C.-III.

For the Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Arvind Kr. Choudhary, Advocate. For the Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate.

Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate.

........

09/18.10.2021.

Heard, learned for the petitioner, Mr. Arbind Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent/State, Mr. Sandeep Verma, A.C. to Mrs. Vandana Singh, Sr. S.C.-III, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2, Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary and learned counsel for the respondent no. 3, Mr. Sanjoy Priprawall assisted by learned counsel, Mr. Rakesh Ranjan.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Arbind Kumar has submitted that petitioner, Kumari Ranjana, wife of Sri. S.N. Choudhary, resident of LIC Colony, Dumka, P.O. & P.S. - Dumka, District - Dumka has preferred this writ application assailing the order passed by Information Commissioner, Jharkhand State Information Commission, Ranchi in Appeal Case No. 1462/2010, whereby the Information Commissioner has passed an order that opposite party (writ petitioner) has not provided the correct and satisfactory information to the appellant / respondent no. 2 namely, Soukat Ali, who has sought an information under Right to Information Act, 2005 and thus the Information Commissioner has imposed penalty of Rs. 20,000/- under Section 20 (1) & (2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and awarded compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to appellant / respondent no. 2 from the concerned Department under Section 19(8)(b) of Right to Information Act, 2005.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that when the information was sought for, this writ petitioner, Kumari

Ranjana was not the Public Information Officer, rather the then Block Development Officer was the Public Information Officer, as such, petitioner has been wrongly saddled with the penalty and petitioner has provided information vide Letter No. 147/Child Development dated 15.04.2010 to the appellant / respondent no. 2 Soukat Ali, which was satisfactory, as such, it cannot be held that petitioner has not complied the same within time as information was sought for by the appellant / respondent no. 2 on 25.03.2010.

Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 / State, Mr. Sandeep Verma, A.C. to Mr. Vandana Singh, Sr. S.C.-III is present.

Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2, Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary has submitted that no document has been annexed by the writ petitioner to assail the impugned award and information was sought for under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on 11.11.2009, which was sent through registered post as Public Information Officer, Block Office, Jama, Dumka has refused to accept the same and as such, the impugned order has been rightly passed by the Information Commissioner.

Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 has further submitted that under Right to Information Act, 2005, respondent no. 2 has sought information on 11.11.2009 and on non-furnishing of information, the respondent no. 2 has preferred first appeal before the First Appellate Officer on 15.12.2009. Thereafter, when information was also not provided, the appeal was preferred before the Jharkhand State Information Commission on 04.02.2010 which was registered as Appeal No. 1462/2010, as such the plea taken by the writ petitioner that information which was sought for by the appellant / respondent no. 2 on 25.03.2010 was supplied vide letter No. 147/Child Development dated 15.04.2010 is misleading fact brought before this Court, as such this Court may dismiss the writ petition in view of the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in terms of order dated 29.07.2019 passed in W.P. (C) No. 2622/2017, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed on the ground that the question of compensation of the penalty, as provided

under Section 19(8)(b) and Section 20 (2) of Right to Information Act, 2005 is in accordance with law as there is a delay in supplying the information.

Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 has further submitted that no document has been produced by the writ petitioner to substantiate the submission made before this Court, rather, the impugned order itself shows that the appeal was preferred before the Jharkhand State Information Commission in the year 2010 itself meaning thereby that information under Right to Information Act, 2005 was invoked in the year 2009, first appeal was also invoked in the year 2009 and thereafter on non-furnishing of such information, appeal was preferred in the year 2010, as such, this Court may not interfere with the same.

Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 has further submitted that though counter affidavit has not been filed, but photocopy which has been brought on record, may be kept on record.

Learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 / Jharkhand State Information Commission, Mr. Sanjoy Priprawall has submitted that the writ petitioner has unnecessarily impleaded the State Information Commissioner as respondent no. 3, which ought to have been filed against the Jharkhand State Information Commission, not against a person, who has passed the impugned order. This view has been taken by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Dhananjay Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others passed in W.P. (C) No. 2622/2017, as such, the writ petition may be dismissed as Information Commissioner has rightly imposed penalty of Rs. 20,000/- upon the erring officer under Section 20 (1) & (2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and directed the Department to pay compensation of the tune of Rs. 25,000/- to the appellant / respondent no. 2 under Section 19 (8)(b) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and as such, the impugned order is just and legal, which does not require any interference by this Court.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on the basis of the materials brought on record, it appears that the writ petitioner

Kumari Ranjana, Child Development Project Officer has not annexed the documents to establish that information sought for by the appellant / respondent no. 2 Soukat Ali under Right to Information Act, 2005 was supplied within time, rather the Letter No. 147 dated 15.04.2010 itself shows that the information was provided on 15.04.2010 only after preferring the appeal before the Jharkhand State Information Commission by appellant / respondent no. 2 Soukat Ali, which was registered as Appeal No. 1462/2010.

Under the aforesaid circumstances, in absence of any documentary evidence brought on record by the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to accept that information under Right to Information Act was invoked on 25.03.2010.

This Court has perused the order passed by the Information Commissioner and has found that the officer was not diligent in pursuing the matter. The officer has not appeared before the Commission on 01.03.2011, though on 01.04.2011, the date was fixed for judgment on 16.05.2011, as such, this Court has no reason to interfere with the same.

So far the penalty, which has been imposed against the officer to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- under Section 20 (1) & (2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 is concerned, this Court is satisfied that this penalty is appropriate as the appellant/respondent no. 2 has to move from Dumka to Ranchi for his legal rights.

So far compensation which has been awarded against the Department is concerned, the same cannot be assailed by the writ petitioner as the same is against the Department. The Department may prefer writ petition for assailing the same, as such, the impugned order does not require any interference.

Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Sunil/-