[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Kumari Ranjana vs The State Of Jharkhand on 26 March, 2026
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
[2026:JHHC:8637]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 1754 of 2012
Kumari Ranjana, W/O Sri S.N. Choudhery, resident of
L.I.C. Colony, Dumka, P.O.&P.S.-Dumka, District-
Dumka.
..... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Soukat Ali, S/o not known to the petitioner, resident
of Village-Chirudih, P.O.-Murbhanga, P.S.-Dumka,
District-Dumka.
3. State Information Commissioner, State Information
Commission, Govt. of Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa,
District-Ranchi.
..... ... Respondents
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Arbind Kumar, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, A.C. to S.C.(L&C)-II.
For the Resp. No. 2 : Mr. Ritu Raj, Advocate.
For the Resp. No. 3 : Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, Advocate.
: Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate.
------
06/ 26.03.2026 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that by
order dated 22.08.2012, notice has been directed to be issued upon the
respondent No. 3. He next submits that inadvertently, the requisites of
notice were not filed within the peremptory time, as such, the petition
was already rejected so far as respondent No. 3 is concerned. He further
submits that now the respondent No. 3 has appeared, in view of that the
position of respondent No. 3 may kindly be restored.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1-State
and learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2, who is
information seeker have not raised any serious objection to that effect.
3. As such, the position of respondent No. 3 is restored to its
original file.
4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned
counsel appearing for the State, learned counsel appearing for the
[2026:JHHC:8637]
respondent No. 2, who is the information seeker and learned counsel
appearing for the respondent No. 3, who is the State Information
Commissioner.
5. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 25.04.2011, passed
by the learned Information Commissioner, Jharkhand State Information
Commission, Ranchi, in Appeal Case No. 223 of 2010, whereby he has
been pleased to impose the penalty of Rs. 25,000/- and directed to pay
compensation of Rs. 35,000/- against the department to the respondent
No. 2.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
the respondent No. 2 has filed a petition for seeking information before
the Public Information Officer and thereafter he preferred other
petitions before the appellate authorities. He next submits that the
petitioner has already supplied the information to the respondent No. 2
within time, but the respondent No. 2 has alleged against the petitioner
that the information supplied by the petitioner is not satisfactory. By
way of referring Annexure-2 to the petition, he submits that the
required information has already been supplied to the respondent No. 2.
He further submits that in spite of that, the learned Information
Commissioner, Jharkhand State Information Commission, Ranchi has
imposed the penalty upon the petitioner. He then submits that even
there is no finding as to how Annexure-2 is not the conformity of the
information demanded by the respondent No. 2.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2-
information seeker submits that the learned Information Commissioner
has rightly passed the said order.
7. On query made by this court, as to what are the information,
which are not correctly and satisfactorily been supplied, he has not been
[2026:JHHC:8637]
able to point out about that.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3-State
Information Commission submits that since the information was not
correctly and satisfactorily provided, in view of that the learned
Information Commissioner has passed the said order, as such, there is
no illegality in the said order.
9. Annexure-2 is the document, which clearly suggests that the
information has already been provided by the petitioner to the
respondent No. 2. On query being made by the court, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent No. 2-information seeker has not been
able to point out what are the information, which was not correctly and
satisfactorily provided to the information seeker.
10. In the impugned order, the learned Information
Commissioner has simply observed that the information was not
correctly and satisfactory provided to the information seeker, which
prima facie appears to be contradictory in light of Annexure-2 of the
petition, which is the information provided by the petitioner to the
respondent No. 2-information seeker.
11. In view of Section 19(8)(b) of the Right to Information Act,
2025, the compensation can only be challenged by the department only,
however, penalty against the petitioner has been passed under Section
20(1)(2) of the said Act. As such, it transpires that no reason has been
provided in the impugned order as to how the information provided by
the petitioner as contained in Annexure-2 of the petition was not
supplied correctly and satisfactorily and also that has not been
demonstrated by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.
2-information seeker before this court.
12. In view of the above facts and reasons, the part of the order
dated 25.04.2011, passed by the learned Information Commissioner,
[2026:JHHC:8637]
Jharkhand State Information Commission, Ranchi, in Appeal Case No.
223 of 2010, by which, the penalty of Rs. 25,000/- has been imposed
against the petitioner, is hereby, set aside.
13. This petition is allowed in part and disposed of in the above
terms.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Dated:-26.03.2026
Amitesh/-
