BRAJ MOHAN DAS vs JHARKHAND STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, THROUGH ITS ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, ENGINEER’S HOSTEL NO.2, ROUND-ABOUT, P.O. & P.S. DHURWA, DISTRICT RANCHI

Heard Mr. Apoorv Singh, counsel appearing for the petitioner.

Heard Mr. Santosh Kr. Tiwari, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2.

This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

“For setting aside the order of the respondent no.1 commission dated 07.09.2010 and its corrigendum/modification dated 09.12.2010 passed in

Appeal Case No.519/10 whereby and whereunder an order has been passed under section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter

referred to as the R.T.I. Act) whereby a sum of Rs.20,000/- has been imposed as penalty against the petitioner to be recovered from his salary and a

further sum of Rs.20,000/- awarded to the complainant under section 19-8(b) of the R.T.I. Act to be paid by the department and to give the

information sought for.â€​

Counsel for the petitioner submits as follows:

a) An application under Right to Information Act, 2005 was filed on 24.12.2009 before the office of the petitioner by the respondent no. 2 in

connection with his proprietorship firm. The information sought for was relating to the period 2007 to 2009 were as under:-

(i) Provide the detail information regarding the total number of Works (from December, 2007 to October, 2009) allotted in favour of M/s R.D.

Developers PVT.

LTD., H. No.:83/2/2, Road No.6, Adityapur, SeraikellaKharsawan, Jharkhand, by the Chief Engineer, Medininagar (Daltonganj), at:-

(i) Auranga Construction Division, Panki

(ii) Water Ways Division, Medininagar

(ii) Provide the duly attested copy of Agreement, Work Order, Pre-Level, Measurement Book & Bill and details of the Payments (till the date) of all

the Works allotted in favour of M/s R.D. Developers Pvt. Ltd., H. No.83/2/2, Road No.6, Adityapur, SeraikellaKharsawan, Jharkhand, by the Chief

Engineer, Medininagar (Daltonganj).

b) As soon as the application came to the knowledge of the petitioner, the petitioner vide memo no.104 dated 27.01.2010 forwarded the said

application before the authorities who were in possession of the information and simultaneously, vide memo no.117 dated 27.01.2010, the petitioner

informed the respondent no.2 to contact the concerned authority for the purposes of obtaining the information.Â

c) In the meantime the respondent no.2 had filed his appeal before the appellate authority and when the appellate authority did not pass any order, the

respondent no.2 filed further appeal before the Jharkhand Information Commission.Â

d) The petitioner further submits that the respondent no.2 immediately after receipt of the memo no.117 dated 27.01.2010 filed fresh application under

Right to Information Act seeking information about the work allocated to his own firm but this time the period for which information was sought for

was from 2007 till 2010.Â

e) The petitioner was served with notice from the State Information Commission dated 23.03.2010 wherein the petitioner was asked to appear on

29.03.2010 but he came to know about the date only on 15.04.2010, therefore he could not appear on 29.03.2010.

f) On 29.03.2010, the petitioner was not present during hearing due to non-receipt of the notice and even the respondent no.2 was not present.

Thereafter, the next date which was fixed was 20.04.2010. Upon receiving the information regarding the hearing the petitioner duly forwarded the

same to the concerned Executive Engineer for providing necessary information and this was also informed to the respondent no 2.

g) On 20.04.2010, the petitioner duly appeared before the Commission and produced two certified copies of the information and one of which was for

the respondent no.2 and thereafter, the matter was adjourned on 14.05.2010 and the matter was posted on 14.06.2010 for filing of objection, if any,Â

to the information submitted by the petitioner.

h) Counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Jharkhand Information Commission, the petitioner had

provided the necessary information to the respondent no.2 vide letter no.819 dated 28.06.2010 which is contained as Annexure-9 to this writ

petition.Â

i) On 14.06.2010, the respondent no.2 was not present. But it appears from the impugned order that respondent no.2 informed over the phone to the

Commission that the required information has not been received by him and ultimately it has been recorded in the impugned order that the respondent

no.2 had informed the Commission that the respondent no.2 has not received a copy of the bills dated 29.03.2008 which was issued under his signature

and the cheque was received by the power of attorney holder Shri Indrish Kumar Dubey and a request was made to the Commission to direct Shri

Indrish Kumar Dubey to appear before the Commission to put his signature. Thereafter, the matter was posted on 07.09.2010.

j) On 07.09.2010 the respondent no.2 did not appear personally but it has been recorded in the order that he recorded his appearance over phone

and the petitioner vide letter no.1145 dated 07.09.2010 had informed the Commission that he is not able to appear on account of Naxalite Bandh but

the said time petition was not accepted by the Information Commission and the impugned order was passed on the ground that on the last occasion it

was clearly indicated that nonappearance of the petitioner on any account including any Bandh will not be acceptable to the Commission and

thereafter the impugned order was passed and a fine of Rs.25,000/- was initially imposed and on account of typographical error, subsequently it was

reduced to 20,000/-.

k) Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is perverse on account of two facts. Firstly, the requisite information was provided to the

respondent no.2 at least prior to the date when the impugned order was passed. A specific letter being memo no.117 dated 27.01.2010 was issued

to the petitioner vide Annexure-3 to the writ petition to approach the concerned officer for the purposes of seeking information. Inspite of this letter,

the respondent no.2 never approached the competent authority and pursued his appeal and the Second Appeal before this Court.

 Secondly, so far as the grievance of the petitioner in connection with two bills, issuance of cheque, person receiving the cheque and personal

appearance of the person receiving the cheque is concerned, such prayer could not have been made before the State Information Commission as the

same was beyond the information which was sought for in the application seeking information in which no such details were provided.

l) Counsel for the petitioner also submits that the letter as contained in memo no.117 dated 27.01.2010 was not brought to the notice of the State

Information Commission by the respondent no.2 which has led to the final order which has been passed in this case.

m) When the matter was pending before the State Information Commission, the petitioner made all endeavor and the information was furnished to the

petitioner vide memo no.817 dated 28.06.2010.

Counsel for the respondent no.2 on the other hand submits that the application under Right to Information Act was filed on 24.12.2009 and

immediately after expiry of one month from that date, the petitioner had no business to issue any letter in connection with the application for Right to

Information and therefore, the letter as contained in memo no.117 dated 27.01.2010 is non est in the eye of law.Â

Counsel for the respondent no.2 further submits that the letter as contained in memo no.117 dated 27.01.2010 was issued by the petitioner after the

respondent no.2 had filed his appeal. He further submits that respondent no.2 had specifically filed a petition before State Information Commission

raising his grievance regarding the availability of information but he could not show any document on record nor he has filed any counteraffidavit to

bring on record the objection filed by the respondent no.2 before the State Information Commission.

Counsel for the respondent also submits that some information was provided to the respondent no.2 belatedly in the letter no.817 dated 28.06.2010.

Therefore, the impugned order which has been passed by the State Information Commission has been rightly passed.Â

Considering the facts of this case and after hearing the counsel for the parties this Court finds that an application for Right to Information dated

24.12.2009 was filed by the respondent no.2 before the petitioner and thereafter, the petitioner had forwarded the application vide memo no.104 dated

27.01.2010 to the authorities before whom the information was available and simultaneously, the petitioner vide memo no.117 dated 27.01.2010 had

issued a letter to the respondent no.2 to approach the concerned authorities for the purposes of seeking information.Â

The application under Right to Information was filed on 24.12.2009 and one month expired on 24.01.2010. This Court does find any illegality in the

issuance of memo no.117 dated 27.01.2010 and this Court does not agree with the contention of the respondent no.2 that letter as contained in memo

no.117 dated 27.01.2010 could not have been issued by the petitioner after expiry of one month particularly in view of the fact that immediately after

expiry of one month within a period of couple of days the letter as contained in memo no.117 dated 27.01.2010 was issued to the respondent no.2.

This Court further finds that the respondent no.2 never brought the memo no.117 dated 27.01.2010 to the notice of the appellate authorities.Â

It further appears from the record that during the pendency of the appeal before the State Information Commission necessary information was

duly provided to the respondent no.2 and only grievance which remained was in connection with the information relating to two bills which the

respondent no.2 had deposited with the department and the cheque in connection with the same was received by one power of attorney holder Shri

Indrish Kumar Dubey. From the perusal of the application under Right to Information, it appears that no specific request was made in connection with

these two bills, the document relating to the release of cheque and its receipt by power of attorney holder Shri Indrish Kumar Dubey. As no specific

request was made in connection with these two bills and its payment etc., the application for information dated 24.12.2009 cannot be said to have

covered this aspect of the matter. However, as the petitioner had taken action pursuant to the application filed under Right to Information Act by

asking the petitioner vide memo no.104 dated 27.01.2010 forwarded the said application before the authorities who were in possession of the

information and simultaneously, vide memo no.117 dated 27.01.2010, the petitioner informed the respondent no.2 to contact the concerned authority

for the purposes of obtaining the information, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law, more so, in view of the fact that the necessary

information was duly provided by the petitioner vide memo no.817 dated 28.06.2010.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the matter in totality, the impugned order passed by the State Information Commission dated

07.09.2010 read with order dated 09.12.2010 is hereby set-aside.

This writ petition is hereby allowed. Â