Hari Nandan Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand And Others
2026 Latest Caselaw 1979 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Hari Nandan Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand And Others on 16 March, 2026

Author: Rajesh Shankar

Bench: Rajesh Shankar

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
              L.P.A. No. 835 of 2025

Hari Nandan Singh        ...     ...   ..... .... Appellant
                         Versus
The State of Jharkhand and Others    ...     ...      .... Respondents
                         ---------

CORAM:             HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
                         ---------
For the Appellant:       In person
For the Resp.-State:     Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, A.C to SC-IV
For the Resp.-JSIC:      Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate
                         Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate
For the Resp. No. 3:     Mr. Abhay Prakash, Advocate
                         ---------
04/Dated: 16.03.2026

1. Heard the petitioner in person and the learned counsel for the

Respondents.

2. Based upon a document at page-98 of the paper book, the petitioner

contends that the copy of the DDC's letter dated 06.04.2017 was received

by the SDO's Office on 10.04.2017. He now adds that this letter was

received in the confidential section maintained by the SDO.

3. By invoking the provisions of the Right to Information Act (RTI),

the petitioner has been seeking the response of the SDO in form of a

report or otherwise to the DDC's letter dated 06.04.2017.

4. The SDO (R-3) has contended that the DDC's letter dated

06.04.2017 was never received in his office. The affidavit does not say

anything about the document at page-98. Learned counsel for the

Respondent No. 3, very casually states that this letter is doubtful. We

cannot appreciate such a submission particularly since it is not even

pleaded in the affidavit. Besides, styling any inconvenient document as

'doubtful' cannot be appreciated. The reasons for the doubt, whether any

inquiry was conducted regarding this document, etc. have to be provided.

5. In the above circumstances, the petitioner now contends that he is

being denied information on the spacious plea that it is not available. He

submits that such pleas, if accepted, would frustrate the objective of the

RTI. He submits that when there is a written document at page-98, which

has not been disputed, the SDO cannot claim that the DDC's letter of

06.04.2017 was never received and consequently, no response or report

was prepared.

6. In the above circumstances, we direct the Deputy Commissioner,

Bokaro to look into the matter, hold an inquiry and file an affidavit

regarding the status of the communication dated 06.04.2017 and the

response, if any, to the same. Since the petitioner contends that the letter

of 06.04.2017 was received in the confidential section of the SDO's

Office, the Deputy Commissioner should also inquire into that angel and

file an affidavit / report, latest by 10.04.2026 by giving an advance copy to

the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 3rd Respondent.

7. We post this matter for further consideration on 13.04.2026.

(M. S. Sonak, C.J.)

(Rajesh Shankar, J.) March 16, 2026 Ranjeet/R.Kr./Cp.1 Uploaded on