Pramod Kumar Tiwary vs The State Of Jharkhand & Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 2061 Jhar

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                          [Civil Writ Jurisdiction]
                           W.P.(C) No. 1187 of 2014
       Pramod Kumar Tiwary                                  .... .. ... Petitioner(s)
                                      Versus
       The State of Jharkhand & Anr.                        .. ... ...Respondent(s)
                                       ...........

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

       For the Petitioner                      : Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate
       For the respondent(s)/State             : Mr. Aditya Raman, AC to
                                                 Mr. Manoj Kumar, GA-III
                                                 ......

06/ 07.06.2022. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

Mr. Ankit Vishal, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted, that the petitioner- [Pramod Kumar Tiwary, S/o Shree Mahendra Nath Tiwari, Resident of 12/28, Nepal House, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District- Ranchi] being the Public Information Officer has preferred the instant Writ Petition on 28.02.2014 for quashing the order dated 20.09.2012 passed by the Chief Information Commissioner, Jharkhand in Appeal No.2818 of 2011 Vide Memo No.8506 dated 24.09.2012 (as contained in Annexure-8 to the Writ Petition) as well as the order dated 26.11.2013 passed by the Chief Information Commissioner, Jharkhand in Review Petition No.32 of 2012 [arising out of Appeal No.2818 of 2011] vide Memo No.10308 dated 06.12.2013 (as contained in Annexure-11 to the Writ Petition), whereby the Chief Information Commissioner has refused to review the order under which the petitioner has been saddled with a penalty under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 of Rs.20,000/- which shall be recovered within a period of six months at the rate of Rs.5,000/- from the salary and shall be deposited in the Government Treasury as the petitioner being the Public Information Officer could not provide any information within the statutory period of 30 days, as contemplated under Section 7 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Mr. Ankit Vishal, learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order, has referred Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition which was filed by one Vinod Kumar before the Assistant Director cum Public Information Officer, Provident Fund Directorate, Dhurwa, Ranchi, seeking information as to what are the legal impediments which are coming in regularization of the deputationists from 02.03.2002 to 31.12.2009 as contained in Letter No.299 dated 02.03.2002.

Mr. Ankit Vishal, learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission has referred Section 2 (f) of the Right Information Act, 2005, which may profitably be quoted hereunder :-

"2(f) "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data materials held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which

can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;"

Mr. Ankit Vishal, learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that these information cannot be provided to the respondent /information seeker as these are not available in the office of the Public Information Officer and he has been put in some penalty under Section 20(1) of the Act, 2005 to the tune of Rs.20,000/- and he has now superannuated from the service. Learned counsel has further submitted that information which has been sought for is hypothetical information which cannot be provided to such person.

Mr. Ankit Vishal, learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his submission, has relied upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court, in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr., vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors, reported in 2011(8) SCC 497 at Paras 59 and 63 which may profitably be quoted hereunder :-

"59.The effect of the provisions and scheme of the RTI Act is to divide "information" into three categories. They are :

(i) Information which promotes transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, disclosure of which may also help in containing or discouraging corruption [enumerated in clauses (b) and (c) of Section 4(1) of the RTI Act].

(ii) other information held by public authority [that is, all information other than those falling under clauses (b) and (c) of Section 4(1) of the RTI Act].

(iii) Information which is not held by or under the control of any public authority and which cannot be accessed by a public authority under any law for the time being in force.

Information under the third category does not fall within the scope of the RTI Act. Section 3 of the RTI Act gives every citizen, the right to "information" held by or under the control of a public authority, which falls either under the first or second category. In regard to the information falling under the first category, there is also a special responsibility upon the public authorities to suo motu publish and disseminate such information so that they will be easily and readily accessible to the public without any need to access them by having recourse to Section 6 of the RTI Act. There is no such obligation to publish and disseminate the other information which falls under the second category.

63.At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of Section 3 and the definitions of "information" and "right to information" under clauses (f) and

(j) of Section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in Section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant. A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/ or

making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide "advice" or "opinion" to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any "opinion" or "advice" to an applicant. The reference to "opinion" or "advice" in the definition of "information" in Section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." [Emphasis supplied]

Mr. Aditya Raman, learned AC to GA-III for the State has opposed and submitted, that from perusal of the original order dated 20.09.2012 passed in Appeal No.2818 of 2011 and its review petition No.32 of 2012 which was dismissed on 26.11.2013, these issues have never been raised by the petitioner.

Mr. Aditya Raman, learned AC to GA-III for the State has further submitted, that no information has been provided, as contemplated under Section 7 of the Act, 2005 informing the respondent/ information seeker that such information cannot be provided to him as those are not coming under Section 2(f) of the Act, 2005 and those information are not within his office, as such, petitioner has no case so as to be interfered by this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the materials available on record, it appears that the petitioner being the Public Information Officer has not complied with the provisions of Section 7 of the Act, 2005, by providing any type of information even by informing the respondent/ information seeker that such information cannot be provided under Section 2(f) of the Act, 2005 and the judgment, as referred above is also not relevant in the facts and circumstances of the case, as such, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the prayer made in the instant Writ Petition as the issue which has been raised by the petitioner before this Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

Accordingly, the instant Writ Petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the concerned Department of the State of Jharkhand through FAX or e-mail at once for needful compliance.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Sandeep/