AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
10 paragraphs · 363 wordsGautam Kumar Choudhary, J
This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the order dated 07.05.2012 passed by Jharkhand State Information Commission in Review Application No.24 of 2011 and also for quashing the order dated 13.10.2011 in Second Appeal No.1685 of 2010 imposing Rs25,000 as penalty and a compensation of Rupees One Lakh directing recovery of the said amount from salary of the petitioner for not furnishing information under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter in short ‘RTI’) .
Respondent no.4 filed an application under RTI on 30.01.2009 for information which was not provided and consequently, he moved the 1st
Respondent No.4 moved before State Information Commission in Second Appeal, in which notices were issued to the parties for their appearance before the Commission.
After service of notice, the appeal was heard on several dates and sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner to furnish the said information. Neither the information was furnished, nor the petitioner deem it necessary to appear before the Commission.
The commission having noted deliberate non-compliance of the order on different dates i.e. 25.03.2011, 25.04.2011, 08.06.2011, 12.07.2011 and 21.09.2011, passed the impugned order.
The main plank of the argument on behalf of the petitioner is that the said information had already been furnished, and in support of it, an undated acknowledgment (Annexure-2) has been filed.
The plea that the said information had been furnished, does not stand to reason. If the said information had really been furnished, the Respondent No.4 would not have taken pain to pursue the appeal upto the level of State Commission. I find force in the argument on behalf of the Respondent-Commission that the said acknowledgement has been created post hoc by the petitioner to build his defence. The fact of the matter remains that surprisingly everything under the sun kept the petitioner preoccupied including football matches to appear before the State Commission and furnish requisite information on as many as five dates as set out in the impugned order.
Writ petition is devoid of merit and stands, dismissed.
Interlocutory Application, if any stands disposed of.