Patna High Court
Raghavendra Mani Tripathi vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 21 March, 2025
Author: Anshuman
Bench: Anshuman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4112 of 2018
======================================================
Raghavendra Mani Tripathi Son of Late Markandey Mani Tripathi Resident
of Barnai Khas Baitalpur, Bhatpar Rani, District - Devaria Uttar Pradesh.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The State Information Commissioner, State Information Commission, 4th
Floor, Information Building,
3. The Secretary, State Information Commission, Patna.
4. The District Magistrate, Gopalganj.
5. The District Education Officer, Gopalganj.
6. The District Programme Officer, Sarv Siksha Abhiyan, Elementary
Education, Gopalganj.
7. The District Treasury Officer, Gopalganj.
8. Ajay Kumar Chaurasia Father's name not known Resident of Bunglow No.
85, Anand Bazar, Circular Road, Near Shiva Mandir, Danapur Cant, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Apurva Kumar (AC to GA-12)
For the State Information : Mrs. Binita Singh, Advocate
Commission
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 21-03-2025
Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner,
Learned Counsel for the State and Learned Counsel for State
Information Commission, Patna.
2. The present writ petition has been filed in the
nature of writ of certiorari for quashing of the Memo No.8064
dated 04.12.2017 (annexed as Annexure-13) by which the State
Information Commissioner, Patna has imposed Rs.10,000/- cost
Patna High Court CWJC No.4112 of 2018 dt.21-03-2025
2/11
to the petitioner and the copy of the same has been forwarded to
the District Magistrate, District Education Officer as well as the
Treasury Officer, Gopalganj for compliance of the same without
appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. Further
prayer has been made for quashing of the Memo No.223 dated
20.12.2017
(annexed as Annexure-14) by which the District
Magistrate, Gopalganj has issued the same addressing to the
District Education Officer, Gopalganj for depositing the penal
cost, as the Secretary, State Information Commission, Bihar,
Patna vide Memo No.1180 dated 12.12.2017. And further for
quashing of the Memo No.02/Gopalganj dated 02.01.2018
(annexed as Annexure-15) by which the District Programme
Officer, Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan, Elementary Education,
Gopalganj has issued the same addressing to the District
Education Officer, Gopalganj giving the reference of the State
Information Commission, Bihar, Patna Memo No.8064 dated
04.12.2017 by which, direction for recovery of Rs.10,000/- has
been made in installment.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits
that petitioner was the then District Programme Officer, Sarv
Shiksha Abhiyan, Elementary Education, Gopalganj for a very
short period of time, at present, District Programme Officer,
Patna High Court CWJC No.4112 of 2018 dt.21-03-2025
Mid-day meal Scheme, Gopalganj. Petitioner was discharging
his duty with best of his capacity and to the full satisfaction of
the authority concerned without any complain or adverse
remarks. Counsel submits that one Ajay Kumar Chaurasia
(Respondent no.8) has sought an information under the Right to
Information Act, 2005 from the D.P.O., Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan,
Elementary Education, Gopalganj with regard to the private
schools which are tagged for recognition under CBSE/ICSE in
the district of Gopalganj for the sessions 2011-12, 2012-13 &
2013-14 with the details of total schools, its telephone no.,
mobile no. along with its name of Sansthapak, Director,
Principal as well as total seat admitted students 25% under
Right to Education Act, and details have also been sought for.
Counsel further submits that the State Information Commission,
Patna has issued Letter No.11906 dated 08.03.2016 (annexed as
Annexure-2) in case No.108210/13-14 and has passed the order
on 11.02.2016 under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information
Act, 2005. The appellant has filed an appeal for providing the
information. Counsel submits that the information has already
been provided to the private Respondent no.8, but even then, he
has preferred appeal with allegation that no information has
been provided to him. Counsel further submits that the said
Patna High Court CWJC No.4112 of 2018 dt.21-03-2025
information has been provided to him vide Annexure-3 and
subsequently vide Annexure-5.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further
submits that the petitioner joined on the relevant post on
11.07.2017, whereas, the case before the Appellate Authority
was going on before his joining in which in a routine manner, he
has appeared on 04.08.2017 and the State Information
Commissioner has pleased to pass the order. Counsel submits
that in compliance of the said order passed by the State
Information Commissioner dated 04.08.2017, he has taken
several steps and issued letter contained in Memo
No.1414/Gopalganj dated 05.10.2017 (annexed as Annexure-11)
and provided information to the private Respondent no.8 on
09.10.2017 with regard to compliance of the order dated
04.08.2017 in which the State Information Officer has
categorically indicated in paragraph no.3 of the order to provide
information to the applicant (private Respondent no.8 of the
present case). Counsel submits that the information which has
been provided to the Respondent no.8 through speed-post has
also been submitted in the office of the State Information
Commission which is Annexure-12 contained in Memo No.
1431 dated 06.10.2017. Counsel further submits that with a
Patna High Court CWJC No.4112 of 2018 dt.21-03-2025
view to fulfill his responsibility on the post he was working on
the next appointed date i.e. 21.11.2017 he could not appear
before the Court, whereas, Counsel for the petitioner submits
that on 21.11.2017, he could not appear and his representative
was there who could not communicate properly to the State
Information Commission with regard to the factual matrix of the
case in which Rs.10,000/- cost has been imposed upon him
payable from his salary. Thereafter, petitioner has moved before
this Court and this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 15.03.2018
has pleased to stay the order impugned regarding payment of
cost. Counsel further submits that from the minute reading of
the order dated 04.08.2017, it is specific direction to him to
provide information to the informant (Respondent no.8)
according to him which he has specifically complied by sending
the entire information vide Annexure-12 through speed-post
through his Memo No. 1431 dated 06.10.2017 i.e. prior to
passing the order imposing cost of Rs.10,000/- to him. He
submits that the said order has been passed due to mis-
communication on the part of his officials due to his
administrative work and he could not present on the said date.
5. Learned Counsel for State Information
Commission, Patna on the other hand submits that the order
Patna High Court CWJC No.4112 of 2018 dt.21-03-2025
dated 04.08.2017 and 21.11.2017, both have been passed
completely in accordance with law. Counsel further submits that
vide order dated 04.08.2017, it become crystal clear that the
petitioner was present in person before the Court and the said
order has been passed in his physical presence, where specific
direction was given to the petitioner for compliance of the order
which he has not complied and if, complied, he has not properly
communicated on the next appointed date i.e. 09.10.2017. In
result, on the next date i.e. 21.11.2017, the State Information
Commission has passed the order imposing a cost of
Rs.10,000/- on him and in this view of the matter, there is
absolutely no need of any interference in the order as petitioner
is absolutely at fault and there is no need of any interference in
the same.
6. Learned Counsel for the State submits that
counter affidavit has been filed in this case and the State
authorities in compliance of the order passed by the State
Information Commission do all the needful and proper
communication has been made by the Collector of the district to
the subsequent subordinate officials for its compliance. But, by
order passed by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 15.03.2018,
stay has been granted in favour of the petitioner. Counsel
Patna High Court CWJC No.4112 of 2018 dt.21-03-2025
submits that order has been passed by the Quasi Judicial
Authority and on the merit or demerit, State has nothing to say.
7. Upon hearing the parties and going through
the documents particularly, three different dates are very much
relevant i.e. the first date is 04.08.2017 from which, it transpires
to this Court that the order dated 04.08.2017 has been passed in
the presence of the petitioner, where the specific direction has
been given to him which states as follows:-
"आवे दक उपसससत है और बताते है सक उनहे
अभी तक यह नहीं बताया गया है सक
गोपालगं ज सजले मे वरर 2011-12, 2012-13
और 2013-14 मे कौन-कौन से सवदालय ऐसे
से सजनहे सी०बी०एस०ई० और
आई०सी०एस०ई० से सं बदता izkIr से । उन
सभी सवदालयो मे सशका का असधकार
असधसनयम के izko/kku के अं तगरत असभवं सचत
वगर के सवदाससरयो के सलए 25 izfr"kr की
सरसकत के सवरद सकतने बचचो का नामांकन
सकया गया, इसका सववरण भी अभी तक
उपलबध नहीं कराया गया है ।
2. Jh jk?kOksUnz मसण f=ikBh, लोक सूचना
पदासधकारी-सह-सजला dk;Zdze पदासधकारी
Patna High Court CWJC No.4112 of 2018 dt.21-03-2025
(सवर सशका), सबहार सशका पसरयोजना,
गोपालगं ज सु नवाई के समय उपसससत हुए।
उनहोने बताया सक वरर 2011-12, 2012-13 मे
कोई भी सकू ल ऐसा नहीं सा सजसे izLohd`fr
izkIr सी। लोक सूचना पदासधकारी यह सपषट
करे सक यहाँ izLohd`fr का vfHkizk; कया है ?
कया यह सशका का असधकार असधसनयम के
अधीन izLohd`r है या कुछ और।
3. लोक सूचना पदासधकारी सु नवाई की
अगली सतसस के पूवर आवे दक को यह सूचना
उपलबध करावे सक गोपालगं ज सजले मे वरर
2011-12, 2012-13 और 2013-14 मे सकन-
सकन सवदालयो को सी०बी०एस०ई० और
आई०सी०एस०ई० से सं बदता izkIr सी तसा
उन सभी सवदालयो मे सशका का असधकार
असधसनयम के izko/kku के अं तगरत असभवं सचत
वगर के सवदाससरयो के सलए 25 izfr"kr की
सरसकत के सवरद सकतने बचचो का नामांकन
सकया गया। सूचना की izfr आयोग को भी दी
जाए।
4. वाद की अगली सु नवाई सदनांक
09.10.2017 को अपराह 02.30 बजे सनधारसरत
Patna High Court CWJC No.4112 of 2018 dt.21-03-2025
की जाती है ।"
8. In response thereof, Counsel for the petitioner
submits that prior to 09.10.2017, petitioner has complied the
order and submitted the information before the State
Information Commission.
9. It transpires to this Court vide Annexure-12
that this is not the way about compliance of a judicial order, as
the said compliance has not been made by way of application,
rather, it transpires that only a seal dated 09.10.2017 of State
Information Commission is affixed on the petition and from
Annexure-12, it transpires that the said application has not been
filed before the Court, when the date was already fixed in this
case. If, the petitioner has complied the order, he ought to file
the same in the form of application, before the Court so that the
Quasi Judicial Court may acknowledge the same in the order
sheet which are lacking in the present case. It also transpires to
this Court that the petitioner was also reluctant that since, he has
complied the order dated 04.08.2017, therefore, he sent his
representative before the Court on 21.11.2017 again without any
information that order dated 04.08.2017 has already been
complied.
10. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the
firm view that in absence of proper communication, order dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.4112 of 2018 dt.21-03-2025
21.11.2017 has been passed which is completely in accordance
with law. Upon minute reading of paragraph no.3 of the order
dated 04.08.2017 i.e. "लोक सूचना पदासधकारी सु नवाई की अगली
सतसस के पूवर आवे दक को यह सूचना उपलबध करावे सक गोपालगं ज
सजले मे वरर 2011-12, 2012-13 और 2013-14 मे सकन-सकन सवदालयो
को सी०बी०एस०ई० और आई०सी०एस०ई० से सं बदता izkIr सी तसा
उन सभी सवदालयो मे सशका का असधकार असधसनयम के izko/kku के
अं तगरत असभवं सचत वगर के सवदाससरयो के सलए 25 izfr"kr की सरसकत
के सवरद सकतने बचचो का नामांकन सकया गया। सूचना की izfr
आयोग को भी दी जाए". Meaning thereby, the petitioner was
directed to provide information to the informant (Respondent
no.8) which he has done vide Annexure-12. But the mistake has
been done on his part that he has not filed this communication to
the information in a proper performa before the State
Information Commission and only due to this mistake, the order
has been passed dated 21.11.2017. It transpires to this Court that
the petitioner is a new Officer and has less knowledge of the
Quasi Judicial proceedings, therefore, due to this mistake, such
order has been passed. Only due to this reason, this Court
hereby directs to the petitioner that in future, such mistake must
not done by him. It has been directed vide order dated
21.11.2017 that "blfy, muds mij #0 10]000 /- dk vkfFkZd
Patna High Court CWJC No.4112 of 2018 dt.21-03-2025
naM vf/kjksfir djrs gq, mldh olwyh ,d eq"r muds osru ls
dVkSrh fd;s tkus dk vkns"k fn;k tkrk gSA " is hereby removed
with a warning that in future, he shall not commit such mistake
and the said remark/punishment shall not be a barrier in his
career in future. But in case, petitioner commit such mistake
again in future, then the future mistake and the earlier mistake,
both shall be taken into consideration in his career.
11. Accordingly, this writ petition is hereby
disposed off.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Divyansh/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 28/03/2025
Transmission Date NA
