Jharkhand High Court
Bhagwat Marandi vs The State Of Jharkhand & Others on 21 February, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P. (C) No. 1958 of 2012
Bhagwat Marandi ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Others ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate
: Mr. Kunal Chandra Suman, Adv.
For the Private Resp. : None
---
13/21.02.2023
1. Learned counsel for the parties are present.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised following points:
(i) Respondent no.3 has not exhausted the remedy of appeal
therefore the petition was not maintainable.
(ii) The application seeking information was vague, no information
can be furnished on vague application.
(iii) The application seeking information filed by the advocate was
repetitive application.
(iv) The application did not disclose that the advocate was acting as
an advocate on behalf of the person who was given the required
information earlier.
(v) In case the information sought for is taken to be seeking
information in individual capacity, they the information sought
for was a third-party information and in such circumstances no
information could have been directed to be furnished without
seeking consent of the third party.
(vi) The respondent No. 3 never approached the appellate authority
and straightaway approached the State Information Commission
and accordingly the petition before the State Information
Commission itself was not maintainable.
3. The application seeking information has been annexed along
with this writ petition which is at page No. 28 of the writ petition. The
learned senior counsel has submitted that the application itself is
vague. The name of the person whose post-mortem report was sought
for, was not mentioned and in the later portion where the name of
Pairu Ravidas- deceased was mentioned, his father's name was not
mentioned. The learned senior counsel submits that this aspect of the
matter was brought to the notice of the Information Commission also
but the same has not been considered while passing the impugned
order. The learned counsel submits that no information can be
furnished on vague application.
4. Earlier one Complaint case No. 179/2010 was instituted before
the Information Commission for seeking the same information which
is involved in the present case which was also filed through the
advocate of Ratu Ravidas, the present Respondent no.3, who is the
information seeker of the present case. The post-mortem report of the
son of Ratu Ravidas, who is said to have expired on 30.03.1990, was
not available and this intimation was forwarded to Ratu Ravidas
through the Advocate who is the private respondent No. 3 in the
present case . On account of the fact that no further objection was
raised, the Complaint Case No. 179/2010 was dropped vide Memo
dated 20.09.2010 as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition.
5. The learned senior counsel submits that a fresh application was
filed on 12.01.2011 seeking the same information and this time by the
Advocate, respondent No. 3 in his individual capacity and the
information having not been received, the complaint was filed directly
before the State Information Commission without exhausting the
remedy of appeal provided under section 19 of the Act.
6. As soon as direction was passed by the learned Information
Commission, the information was furnished stating that the post-
mortem report is not available and it cannot be furnished, but the
learned Commission has passed the impugned order on the ground
that that there was delay in tendering such information.
7. From perusal of the application seeking information, it appears
that the same was filed in the individual capacity of the Advocate. It
was not mentioned in the application that the respondent no.3 was
seeking information on behalf of his client. The learned senior counsel
has submitted that as per the provision of law in order to give 3rd party
information, the 3rd party is required to be noticed. The learned senior
counsel submits that even that step was not taken by the learned
Commission before directing the petitioner to furnish information to
the Respondent No. 3.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State
Information Commission has submitted that in terms of the provisions
of Section 18 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the persons
seeking information could have directly approached the State
Information Commission, if the information is not provided in terms
of Section 7 and it is not necessary to file appeal under Section 19 of
the Act and then approach the State Information Commission for
seeking information. The learned counsel has also submitted that
either the person seeking information could have approached the State
Information Commission by filing a second appeal or straightaway
could have filed a complaint case. The learned counsel submits that in
the present case, a complaint case was filed which was maintainable.
9. So far as the application seeking information as contained at
page No. 28 of the writ petition is concerned, the learned counsel has
not been able to show anything from such application that the
respondent No. 3 (the Advocate) was seeking information on behalf of
any of his client . The learned counsel submit that the application filed
by the advocate itself indicates that the information sought for was for
his client.
10. From perusal of the records of this case, which has been
submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents, it appears that
an objection was also raised before the State Information Commission
that the information sought for through the application was vague. An
order to that effect was drawn on 05.09.2011, wherein it was recorded
that the information which was sought for by the private respondent
was vague.
11. The learned counsel has submitted that the impugned order
imposing punishment on the petitioner has been passed only on
account of the reason that the petitioner did not act as per the timeline
provided under the Right to Information Act and the impugned order
has not gone into the merits of the case . The learned counsel submits
that the petitioner having not followed the timeline as provided under
Right to Information Act, the impugned order does not call for any
interference.
12. The learned counsel has also submitted that he will furnish
certain judgments dealing with interpretation of Section 18 and 19 of
the Right to Information Act, 2005, wherein it has been held that the
person could directly approach the Information Commission on
account of non-furnishing of information or incomplete information or
misleading information and it was not necessary for him to exhaust the
remedy of appeal under section 19 .
13. The learned counsel has relied upon a judgment passed by this
Court on 2nd July, 2019 in W.P. (C) No. 1924/2019.
14. Post this case for judgment on 28th April, 2023.
15. The records produced by the learned counsel for the
respondents is being retained till pronouncement of the judgment.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Mukul
