Harishankar Barik vs Shashi Bala Devi

1.The applicant-respondent no.3 has appeared through Mr. Pankaj Kumar Dubey, the learned counsel.

The petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 10.03.2016 by which the Information Commissioner, Jharkhand State Information Commission has

imposed fine of Rs.40000/- upon him and directed him to comply with the directions issued by the Commission.

Plea raised by the petitioner is that due to a fracture in his leg he could not appear before the appellate authority, however, the informations sought

by the applicant-respondent no.3 were furnished to her vide letter dated 05.02.2016. It is contended that without quantifying the loss suffered to the

applicant a fine of Rs.40000/- has been imposed upon the petitioner under section 19 (8) (b) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 which, thus, is not

sustainable in law.

Briefly stated, the respondent no.3 filed an application on 11.06.2013 before the Circle Officer, Garhwa seeking informations under the Right to

Information Act, 2005. The petitioner has pleaded that at that time he was not posted as Circle Officer, Garhwa; the petitioner has not disclosed the

date since when he is posted as Circle Officer, Garhwa and the learned counsel for the petitioner has also no instructions on this. When the

informations as sought by the respondent no.3 were not supplied to her, she has preferred Appeal Case No.1260 of 2013. In the writ petition, the

petitioner has asserted that in compliance of order dated 20.08.2015 he could not appear before the Information Commission due to ill health of his

father. He has also taken a stand that due to a fracture in his leg he could not appear before the Information Commission on 10.02.2016 and he has

written letter dated 05.02.2016 to the authorized officer, State Information Commission furnishing information in this regard.

A perusal of the impugned order dated 10.03.2016 would reveal that in the last five hearings the Public Information Officer did not appear in the

proceeding of Appeal Case No.1260 of 2013. There is no explanation by the petitioner of such conduct of the Public Information Officer in the

proceeding of Appeal Case No.1260 of 2013. Copies of letters dated 05.02.2016 vide Annexures-6 and 6/1 which have been produced in the present

proceeding by the petitioner are the documents signed by the petitioner himself. There  is no evidence on supply of these letters to the respondent

no.3; the petitioner has not disclosed the mode of communication of these letters to the respondent no.3 or the authorized officer of the State

Information Commission. Leaving aside all these aspects, it is not disclosed by the petitioner whether in compliance of order dated 10.03.2016 he

appeared before the Commission and complied its direction or not. Quantification of costs does not involve any mathematics; it is discretion of the

Court and moreover it cannot be done with mathematical precision.

In view of the above facts, I am not inclined to interfere in this matter and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.