Cornelius Marandi vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder order dated 17.08.2015 passed by the Information Commission, Jharkhand has been assailed whereby and whereunder the order has been passed directing the deemed Public Information Officer-cum-Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Transmission Range, Dumka for making payment of compensation of Rs. 30,000/- in exercise of power conferred under Section 19(8)(b) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

It is the case of the petitioner that the day when the application was filed by the information seeker, Respondent No.5, he was not the Nodal Officer discharging the duties of the Public Information Officer and as such, no liability can be casted upon him as has been casted by virtue of Annexure-6.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred the communication dated 23.02.2016 whereby and whereunder, by making reference of the order dated 17.08.2015, direction has been passed by the Information Commission, Jharkhand for compliance of the aforesaid direction which, according to the petitioner, is the cause of action to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Mr. Shresth Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.5 has argued with vehemence opposing the ground as also the reason for filing the present writ petition.

According to him, there is no liability casted by the Information Commission vide impugned order upon this petitioner, rather, liability in exercise of power conferred under Section 19(8)(b) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 has been casted upon the Public Information Officer who was discharging the duty of the Public Information Officer on the day when the application was filed by the information seeker, Respondent No.5 and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be said to be aggrieved with the impugned order.

He further submits that if the petitioner has got any grievance regarding any clarification, remedy is available with him to make application before the Commission.

Upon this learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that he may be allowed to make appropriate application for clarification, if any.

This Court, after having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the submission advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner, deems it fit and proper to dispose of the writ petition by giving liberty to the petitioner that if any prejudice is being caused by the impugned order, he is at liberty to file application for clarification of the order passed by the State Information Commission.

This writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.