Jharkhand High Court
State Of Jharkhand Through The ... vs Jharkhand State Information ... on 14 November, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
WP(C) No. 6571 of 2010
State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Animal Husbandry and
Fishery Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi ..... ...... Petitioner
Versus
Jharkhand State Information Commission & Anr. .... .... Respondents
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Manish Kumar, Sr. SC-II
Mr. Rajesh Kumar Jha, AC to Sr.SC-II
For the Respondents : Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate
Mr. Raj Vardhan, Advocate
--------
The matter is being taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel for the parties
have no objection with it and submitted that audio and video qualities are good.
Order No.03/Dated: 14th November, 2022
Mr. Manish Kumar, learned Sr. SC-II assisted by Mr. Rajesh
Kumar Jha, AC to Sr.SC-II appearing on behalf of the petitioner-State of
Jharkhand through the Secretary, Animal Husbandry and Fishery
Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi has submitted, that the
petitioner has preferred this writ petition on 23.12.2010, against the order
dated 30.04.2008 passed by the Chief Information Commissioner, as
contained in memo No. 9774 dated 21.09.2008 passed in Complaint Case No.
78 of 2007, whereby the Chief Information Commissioner has exceeded his
jurisdiction by entertaining such complaint petition and without assessing the
damage caused to the information seeker as held by the Hon'ble Delhi High
Court in the case of "N.T.P.C. Ltd. v. Mohd. Samad Khan", reported in 2010
SCC OnLine Del 1049, has put a cost of Rs.10,000/- as compensation, under
Section 19(8)(b) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, upon the public
authority.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that the
order passed by the Chief Information Commission is beyond the scope of
Right to Information Act, 2005 by entertaining a complaint petition, though
the Chief Information Commissioner is only duty bound to accept the appeal
against the order passed by the first appellate court, as such, the impugned
order is bad in law.
3. Mr. Krishna Murari, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Raj
Vardhan, learned counsel for the respondent-Jharkhand Information
Commission has opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner and submitted, that the writ petition is fit to be dismissed as the
writ petition has been preferred by the State of Jharkhand through the
Secretary, Animal Husbandry and Fishery Department, Government of
Jharkhand, Ranchi though the same has been sworn by Dr. Taran Singh, S/o
Sardar Haribansh, resident of Berdwan Compound, Circular Road, Ranchi on
the basis of the declaration that he has been authorized to swear this affidavit,
for which, he has not made any such averment in the writ petition and no
such document or authorization letter has been brought on record.
4. Under such circumstances, the maintainability of writ petition is a
serious question, as raised by the learned counsel for the respondent, which
also get support from the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001, but since
there is miscarriage of justice, as such, this Court is inclined to hear the
instant writ petition on merits.
5. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the Chief
Information Commissioner has exceeded his jurisdiction, as envisaged under
Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, as he is not empowered
under the law to entertain a complaint case and that too, directing the officer
concerned to give finding on the basis of certain documents pending before
them, accordingly, the impugned order is hereby set-aside on the ground that
it is beyond the jurisdiction of the Chief Information Commissioner, as no
monetary loss has been calculated in view of the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as referred above.
6. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is hereby allowed.
7. Before parting this judgment, this is the third example when this
Court is coming to such position. Once in the case of Godda, where the
Deputy Commissioner, Godda was the petitioner and affidavit was sworn by
a Executive Magistrate without annexing the authorization letter. This time
the Secretary, Animal Husbandry and Fishery Department, Government of
Jharkhand, Ranchi has not taken pain to swear affidavit on behalf of the
State, as they are understanding that they are not supposed to go before the
Court of law and they are directing the subordinates to go and swear the
affidavit.
8. The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand is directed to
issue a clear letter to all the concerned department that the appellant himself
must file an affidavit before the authority concerned and his authorization
letter will not allow the appellant to file affidavit.
9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Chief Secretary,
Government of Jharkhand through FAX/ Email for his kind perusal.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
Madhav/-
