Jharkhand High Court
Srinarayan Vigyan Prabhakar Son Of Late ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 April, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 3753 of 2016
Srinarayan Vigyan Prabhakar son of late Yogendra Kumar Verma
resident of 104, Brijnandan Apartment, P.O. & P.S.-Hazaribagh,
Dist.-Hazaribagh
.... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Chairman, State Information Commission, Engineer Hostel No.-
2, HEC Campus, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Dist.-Ranchi
3. Under Secretary, State Information Commission, Engineer
Hostel No.-2, HEC Campus, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Dist.-Ranchi
4. Suresh Mahato, son of late Jaylal Mahto resident of Bhuli D
Block, Shakti Market, Dhanbad, P.O.-Bhuli, P.S.-Bank More,
Dist.-Dhanbad
.... Respondents
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Petitioners : Mr. Amit Kr. Verma, Advocate
: Mr. Ashish Kr. Thakur, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Advocate
: Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, Advocate
: Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate
: Mr. Om Prakash Tiwari, GP III
.....
By the Court:-
1. Heard the parties.
2. This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India with a prayer for issue of appropriate
writ(s), order(s), direction(s) for quashing the order dated
02.01.2015 passed in Information Appeal Case No.206 of 2012 by
which the Public Information Officer-cum-Additional Collector
(In-charge Revenue Section), office of Deputy Commissioner,
Dhanbad has been directed to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/-
and has been directed to furnish the information to the private
respondent no.4 of this writ petition.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the respondent no.4 filed an
application under the provisions of the Right to Information Act
for giving certain information in respect of the land acquisition
proceeding vide LA Case No. 6/48-49 from the office of Public
Information Officer-cum-Additional Collector (Revenue),
Dhanbad and the same was forwarded to the office of land
acquisition officer. The respondent being dissatisfied preferred an
appeal before the appellate forum and thereafter before the State
Information Commissioner. The petitioner was directed by the
Under Secretary of State Information Commissioner, Ranchi to
provide information sought for by the respondent no.4 to the
respondent no.4. The Public Information Officer-cum-Additional
Collector, Dhanbad tried his level best to provide information to
the respondent no.4 but he could not get the relevant record of the
LA Case No.6/48-49. On 02.01.2015 the In-charge Chief
Information Commissioner took note of its decision dated
19.08.2014 by which the said Public Information Officer-cum-
Additional Collector (In-charge Revenue Section) office of Deputy
Commissioner, Dhanbad was intimated that information sought
for by the petitioner is not available in its office hence, the
Information Commissioner directed to furnish an affidavit but he
submitted a plain paper without the stamp and without signature
of the deponent of the affidavit as an excuse to be an affidavit, in
compliance of the said order dated 19.08.2014 and considering the
conduct of the said Public Information Officer, the respondent
no.2 in exercise of its power under Section 19 (8) (b) directed the
Public Information Commissioner to pay Rs.30,000/- to the
appellant who is the respondent no.4 in this writ petition.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner who was at the relevant time the Public Information
Officer concerned but now he has been superannuated from the
service; did not have the information sought for by the respondent
no.4 as informed to him by the clerk of the District Record Room,
Dhanbad but in the meanwhile, the same has been received and
has been sent to the respondent no.4 on 29.09.2015. It is next
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
relevant records are not available in the office of Additional
Collector and the Additional Collector has provided the
information after obtaining the same from the land acquisition
record room. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner joined Dhanbad on the post of LRDC
on 12.08.2014 and was transferred from Dhanbad on 22.06.2015
whereas the information was sought under the R.T.I. Act in the
year 2011 therefore, the petitioner is not liable to pay ₹ 30,000/-.
Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in the writ petition
be allowed.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment
of the coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. (C) No.3569 of 2012
wherein it has been held by the coordinate Bench that the
compensation which has been awarded against the department
cannot be assailed by a private individual and the same can only
be assailed by the department concerned hence, the challenge to
the same by a private individual is not maintainable and the said
judgment of the coordinate Bench has been affirmed by the
Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 17 of 2022 vide its
Judgment dated 02.08.2023. It is further submitted that the writ
petition has not been filed by the department and the same has
been filed by a private individual hence, this writ petition be
dismissed being not maintainable.
6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after
carefully going through the materials in the record, the
undisputed facts remains that under Section 19 (8) (b) inter alia the
State Information Commissioner has the power inter alia to require
public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or
other detriment suffered. The undisputed fact also remains that
though vide order dated 19.08.2014 the Public Information
Officer-cum-Additional Collector (In-charge Revenue Section)
office of Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad was directed to file an
affidavit that the information sought by the respondent no.4 of
this writ petition is not available with it but the same has not been
filed. Under such circumstances, this Court does not find any
illegality in the order passed by the In-charge Chief Information
Commissioner dated 02.01.2015 in Information Appeal Case
No.206 of 2012.
7. Moreover, as the petitioner claims that he was not the relevant
person who failed to furnish the information and the relevant
person was the person who was occupying the relevant post in
the year 2011; whereas the petitioner was there only from 2014 to
2015. Further, as the direction for payment of compensation is not
to the petitioner in person but to Public Information Officer-cum-
Additional Collector, Dhanbad and the learned counsel for the
petitioner fairly submits that the petitioner is no more the Public
Information Officer or the Additional Collector as he has been
superannuated.
8. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view
that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the order dated
02.01.2015 passed in Information Appeal Case No.206 of 2012 by
the In-charge Chief Information Commissioner, Ranchi.
9. Accordingly, this writ petition being without any merit is
dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 2nd April, 2024
AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-
