Jharkhand High Court
Ram Janam Ram vs Jharkhand State Information ... on 17 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction)
L.P.A No. 247 of 2020
Ram Janam Ram, s/o Sitaram, aged about 60 years, r/o new Forest Colony,
Sudna, PO-Sudna, PS-Daltonganj, District-Palamau, Jharkhand
............. Petitioner/Appellant
Versus
1. Jharkhand State Information Commission, Ranchi through its Secretary
having its office at Engineer Hostel No.2, HEC Campus, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa,
District- Ranchi
2. Sachidanand Pandey, son of not known to the petitioner, Daily
Wager/Labourer, office of the Regional Chief Conservator of Forest,
Medninagar, PO +PS- Medninagar, Palamau ..........................Respondents
--------------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
For the Appellant : Mr. Prem Mardi, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1 : Mr. Sanjoy Piprawal, Advocate
For the Pvt. Respondent : Mr. Pramod Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate
---------------
Order No.10/Dated:17th August 2023
Per, Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.
1. This appeal has been filed against the Judgment dated 10 th
February 2020 passed by the writ Court in W.P (C) No.5387 of 2015
whereby the writ petition has been dismissed.
2. The writ petition was filed for quashing the order dated 12 th
February 2015 passed in Appeal No.2210 of 2011 passed by the
Acting Chief Information Commissioner, Jharkhand State
Information Commission, Ranchi, whereby a penalty of Rs.25,000/-
has been imposed upon the appellant on account of non-furnishing of
information.
3. Mr. Prem Mardi, the learned counsel for the appellant has
submitted that the specific case of the appellant is that whatever
information was available on records was already furnished. He
submits that a copy of the application which was demanded by the
private respondent was not available in the records and therefore it
was not furnished. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted
that the order imposing penalty is not sustainable and the writ Court
has not considered this aspect of the matter properly and passed the
impugned order dismissing the writ petition.
4. Mr. Pramod Kumar Chaudhary, the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the private respondent has referred to the information
mentioned in Column No.5 and has submitted that it was this
information which not furnished to the private respondent and,
accordingly, the learned Information Commissioner has rightly imposed
penalty of Rs.25,000/- to be realized from the appellant. He has no
grievance with respect to other informations sought by him.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that
the entire dispute relates to the information mentioned under Column
No.5 of the Chart which has been annexed along with the Memo of
Appeal. As per Column No.5, the private respondent had sought for
information in connection with the application pursuant to which the
letter dated 18th September 1999 rejecting his joining was issued. In the
application seeking information itself, the private respondent has
mentioned that he never filed any such application for joining. Such plea
seeking information was answered by the appellant that no such
application was found in the records. However, the private respondent
was still not satisfied with that on account of the fact that certain order
was passed in a previous writ petition enabling the private respondent to
join the services as per the order of the writ Court and the order
impugned in the writ petition was set aside. The private respondent
raised a grievance regarding non-furnishing of the information which led
to passing of the order of penalty impugned in the writ petition dated 12th
February 2015 contained in Memo No.5322 dated 29th May 2015.
6. This Court finds that the private respondent had himself
mentioned in his aforesaid Column No.5 that he had not filed any
application pursuant to which the order dated 18th September 1999 was
issued and, consequently, it is not in dispute from the side of the private
respondent that he had not filed any application pursuant to the order of
the High Court. In view of the fact that the private respondent himself
stated that he did not file any such application pursuant to which the
order dated 18th September 1999 was issued, the information furnished
by the appellant that no such application has been found on records is
itself an information which matches with the stand of the appellant. The
Information Officer is not supposed to create any information. The
Information Officer is supposed to only look into the records and find
out from the records if any information sought for is available and if it
is available, the same is required to be provided. This Court finds that
the grievance of the private respondent that no information was
furnished with regard to Column No.5 as mentioned in the Chart is
misconceived. Accordingly, the order of penalty passed by the
Information Commission in connection with information sought for vide
Column No.5 is held perverse.
7. This Court finds that the aforesaid aspect of the matter was not
properly placed by the appellant before the writ Court and, consequently,
it has not been considered by the writ Court.
8. However, the aforesaid arguments advanced on behalf of the
appellant and the private respondent are borne out of the records and this
Court is of the considered view that information available on record in
connection with aforesaid Column No.5 was duly furnished by stating
that the application was not available on records. Consequently, the order
impugned before the writ Court i.e. the order of penalty impugned in the
writ petition dated 12th February 2015 contained in Memo No. 5322
dated 29th May 2015 calls for interference and is accordingly set aside.
Therefore, the impugned order passed by the writ Court dismissing the
writ petition is also set aside.
9. L.P.A No.247 of 2020 is allowed.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Sudhir/N.A.F.R.
