Manindra Bhagat vs State of Jharkhand And Ors

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J

Heard Mr. Rahul Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Sanjoy Piprawal, the learned counsel for the State Information Commission, Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, the learned AC to Sr. SC-III for the respondent -State and Mrs. Pragati Prasad, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.4.

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 12.03.2015 passed in Appeal No.380 of 2014.

Mr. Rahul Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that by way of the said impugned order a compensation of Rs.20,000/- has been inflicted upon Circle Officer-cum- Public Information Officer, Bero under section 19(8)(b) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. He further submits that the information which was sought by the information seeker has already been provided by the predecessor of the petitioner on 26.09.2013 by way of Annexure-4. He further submits that the impugned order has been passed without discussing the fact that which information was not provided to the information seeker. He further submits that in view of the judgment rendered in case of "Uttam Kujur v. State of Jharkhand & Ors"-2019 SCC Online Jhar. 1920, the impugned judgment cannot sustain in the eye of law.

Per contra, Mr. Piprawal, the learned counsel appearing for the State Information Commission submits that the order is not passed against the petitioner whereas the order has been passed against the authrority and in view of the judgment rendered in case of "Ashok Kumar Chopra v. State of Jharkhand & Others"-2019 SCC Online Jhar. 1388, the writ petition is not maintainable.

Mr. Rahul Kumar, the learned counsel further submits that the order has been passed in a very cryptic manner by the Information Commission and it is against the mandate laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay"-(2011) 8 SCC 497:

Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under the RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counterproductive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquillity and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising "information furnishing", at the cost of their normal and regular duties.

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State has accepted the arguments of Mr. Piprawal, the learned counsel. The learned counsel appearing for the private respondent tried to justify the order passed by the Information Commission.

In view of the above facts and submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it transpires that the information in question has already been provided by way of Annexure-4 and it is not mentioned in the impugned order that what information was further required to the information seeker. The learned counsel for the information seeker is also not in a position to point out which information is still to be provided.

In view of the judgment of this Court in the case of "Ashok Kumar Chopra"(supra), it transpires that the order has not been passed against the petitioner whereas the order is passed against the office of the Circle Officer, Bero. The office of the Circle Officer, Bero has not approached this Court.

The writ petition being W.P.(C) No.2516 of 2015 stands disposed of clarifying the above position of law.