Tripura High Court
The State Of Tripura vs Sri. Rana Pratap Nath Bhowmik on 16 March, 2021
Page - 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
CRP No.11/2017
1. The State of Tripura,
represented by the Secretary to the Government of Tripura in the
Home Department having its office at New Capital Complex,
Lichubagan, P.O. Kunjaban, Agartala, West Tripura.
2. Commandant,
8th Bn. TSR Battalion (IR-III) LalCharra, Chailengta,
P.O. Chailengta Dhalai
3. State Public Information Officer,
G.A (P & T) Department, Government of Tripura;
having its office at Capital Complex Lichubagan, P.O. Kunjaban,
Agartala, West Tripura.
.............. Petitioner(s).
Vs.
Sri. Rana Pratap Nath Bhowmik
Son of Shri Usha Ranjon Nath Bhowmik, Radhamadhav Sarani,
PO - Dhaleshwar, Agartala Dist - West Tripura, PIN - 799007.
.............. Respondent(s).
_B_E_ F_O_R_E_
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. S G CHATTOPADHYAY
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D Bhattacharya, Govt. Adv.
For Respondent(s) : None.
Date of hearing & Judgment : 16th March, 2021.
Whether fit for reporting : No.
Page - 2 of 4
J U D G M E N T ( O R A L)
( Akil Kureshi, CJ ).
This petition is filed by the State Government to challenge an
order dated 5th December, 2016 passed by the State Chief Information
Commissioner directing to supply an audit report to the original
information seeker under Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter for
short "RTI Act").
[2] Brief facts are that the respondent herein who was an employee
of Tripura State Rifles(TSR), was facing a departmental inquiry. He had
moved an application before the authorities for supplying him certain
documents under RTI Act by filing application in proper proforma on 18th
August, 2016. Out of 4 documents he had asked for, he was suitably
replied in relation to 3 documents and it is, therefore, not necessary for us
to note his demand for these 3 documents. However, the 4th document
which is at the centre of controversy and which the respondent wanted
copy of was as under :
"1. Supply the copies of internal "Audit Report" conducted in the
8th Bn. TSR, by the different audit team headed by Sri
Khatrajoy Reang, IPS & Sri K B Das, IPS. For the period
from 2012-2014, 2015 & 2016 of Sri Dilip Debbarma,
Commandant, 8th Bn. TSR."
Page - 3 of 4
[3] Since the competent authority did not provide this document
despite the respondent having paid the requisite fees, he preferred appeal
before the State Chief Information Commissioner. Such appeal was
decided on 5th December, 2016 in following manner :
"7. Insofar as item no.l of the information sought by Shri Rana
Pratap Nath Bhowmik is related to the audit report of the 8th
Battalion TSR covering the period of incumbency of Shri Dilip
Debbarma as Commandant, 8th Battalion TSR. The SPIO told
during hearing that there is only one audit report which is now
seized by the I.O. of the case with reference to the FIR. However,
there is a copy available with him and since the SPIO had earlier
demanded additional money of Rs.96/- for supply of the
information, he cannot plead otherwise now. The arguments of
the SPIO that it would impede the process of investigation and
apprehension of the culprit is not tenable as the audit report has
nothing to do with the investigation process as the information
seeker did not ask inquiry report or matters connected to the
investigation.
8. The Commission, after going through the fact of the case,
comes to the conclusion that the supply of copy of audit report is
in no way connected with the progress of the investigation nor
apprehension of the culprit as the information seeker (the
complainant in this case) is not asking investigation report of the
Inquiring Officer nor the statements recorded by him but the audit
report of that period. Hence, the Commission directs that copy of
audit report be supplied to the complainant within 20(twenty)
days from the date of this order free of cost as the period of one
month has already passed.
Page - 4 of 4
9. Copy of this order should be sent to the complainant and the
Commandant, 8th Bn.TSR & SPIO."
[4] Appearing for the Government learned Government Advocate,
Mr. Debalaya Bhattachariya, heavily relied on Section 8(1)(h) of the
Right to Information Act, 2005 and submitted that the appellate authority
committed a serious error in directing supply of the document in question.
[5] We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.
Firstly, the State Chief Information Commissioner has observed that
though the police authorities may have seized the audit report, the
Government officials did possess a copy thereof. Further, he observed that
the audit report had nothing to do with the investigation which was going
on since the information seeker did not ask the inquiry report of matters
connected with the investigation. This apart, learned Government
Advocate, on our request, sought instructions and stated that by now even
the investigation is over. The accused being Government servant, sanction
of proper prosecution is sought and is pending.
Under the circumstances, this petition is dismissed. Pending
application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
( S G CHATTOPADHYAY, J ) ( AKIL KURESHI, CJ )
Sukehendu
