Ashok Kumar Dubey vs Jharkhand State Information Commission And Ors

Heard Mr. Prabhash Kumar, counsel appearing for the petitioner.

Heard Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, counsel assisted by Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2.

Heard Mr. Pawan Kumar Choudhary, counsel appearing for the respondent no. 3.

This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

"(a) For quashing the order dated 26.11.2015 passed in appeal No. 2589 of 2014 by learned Information Commissioner, Ranchi under R.T.I. Act whereby and whereunder it was held that DFO, Garhwa North Division, Garhwa has violated the R.T.I. Act and imposed a cost of damages of Rs. 30,000/- under Section 19(8)(B) of R.T.I. Act and directed him to make payment of this amount to appellant by Bank draft and next date was fixed as 15.03.2016.

(b) For issuance of writ of Mandamus to withdrawal/cancel/rescind the impugned order dated 26.11.2015 passed in appeal No. 2589/14 by learned Information Commissioner, Ranchi.

(c) For issuance of a writ of prohibition, prohibiting and restraining the concerned Respondents not to give effect to or to act in pursuance of or in furtherance of impugned order dated 26.11.2015 passed in Appeal No. 2589/11 by learned Information Commissioner, Ranchi."

Counsel for the petitioner, during the course of argument, has drawn the attention of this Court to order dated 25.04.2016 passed by this Court, which reads as follows:

"Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that information sought by the applicant / Respondent No. 3 herein were voluminous running into 4650 pages and most of the pages were three times the size of normal A4 size paper. These informations were also provided vide Annexure-15 dated 09.11.2015 and Annexure- 16 dated 16.11.2015 to the complainants. No notice for awarding compensation in terms of section 19(8)(B) of Right to Information Act had earlier been issued upon the petitioner. Petitioner under a bonafide impression, had nominated the Head Clerk as Public Information Officer and himself a District Authorized Officer as the first Appellate Authority.

Be that as it may, there were no deliberate intent on the part of the petitioner to deny information to the complainant, a BPLE Card Holder. However, initially, because of the voluminous nature of the document, fee of Rs. 15,000/- was asked to be paid which has also been waived and the entire information has been supplied, as taken note of in the impugned order dated 10.12.2015 (Annexure-18) by the Information Commissioner. In such circumstances, direction to pay compensation under section 19(8)(B) of Right to Information Act to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- to the complainant / Respondent No. 3 herein and also for initiation of departmental inquiry, is wholly uncalled for and in violation of principles of natural justice also.

Issue notice to the Respondent No. 3 under Registered Cover with A/D, for which requisites be filed within one week, failing which this application as against the concerned respondent, shall stand rejected without further reference to a Bench.

Learned counsel for the State appears on behalf of Respondent No. 1 and 2 and seeks time to obtain instructions. Accordingly, four weeks time is granted.

List the case after service of notice.

In the meantime, no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned order dated 10.12.2015 bearing Memo No. 20939 passed in Appeal No. 2589/2014 (Annexure-18)."

By the said order, notices were issued and on that day, respondent nos. 1 and 2 prayed for time to seek instructions in this matter. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2.

So far as the private respondent i.e. respondent no. 3 is concerned, he has entered appearance and has filed a counter-affidavit.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that it has been already recorded in order dated 25.04.2016 that there was no deliberate intent on the part of the petitioner to deny any information to the complainant and that, initially because of voluminous nature of document, fees of Rs. 15,000/- was asked for and subsequently, the entire information has been received by the private respondent without payment of the said amount.

He submits that prior to passing of the impugned order, the aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned State Commission nor the principles of natural justice has been followed which could have enabled the petitioner to explain the entire circumstances to the learned State Commission.

The fact that the principles of natural justice has not been followed, has not been denied by the counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents.

However, the counsel for the private respondent submits that admittedly he has received the required information and has nothing much to say in the matter.

Considering the fact that prima facie there is no deliberate intent on the part of the petitioner to deny the information to the complainant and the fact that there has been violation of principles of natural justice while passing the impugned order, this Court is inclined to set-aside the impugned order dated 26.11.2015 contained in Memo No. 20939 dated 10.12.2015 and the matter is remitted to the respondent no. 2 for passing appropriate order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner as well as the private respondent are directed to appear before the respondent no. 2 on 15.03.2019 and upon their appearance, the respondent no. 2 is directed to give opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate order after hearing the parties within a period of one month thereafter.

This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations.