Sanjay Kumar Das vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

Heard Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-

State Information Commission and Mr. Vineet Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State.

Inspite of valid service of notice, nobody is appearing on behalf of respondent no. 4 â€"who is information seeker.

Petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing order dated 22.12.2014 passed in Appeal Case No. 2652 of 2011 whereby in exercise of power

under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, a fine of Rs. 20,000/- has been imposed upon Sanjay Kumar who is stated to be Public

Information Officer.

Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it transpires from the record that an application was made by the

respondent no. 4 who is information seeker on 12.07.2011 for certain information. He further submits that it transpires from Annexure-6 of the writ

petition that the then Public Information Officer has already provided information on 25.04.2012. He further submits that the petitioner herein who is

Sanjay Kumar Das was posted at Jarmundi with effect from 11.02.2014 to 26.06.2014 wherein impugned order has been passed on 22.12.2014. He

further submits that it is incumbent upon the Information Commission to pass appropriate order under section 20 (1) read with its proviso of said

Section and it is duty cast upon the Information Commission to give information who is first with whom delay in providing the information has

occurred. He further submits that in view of the statement made in paragraph 19 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State, it transpires that

the petitioner is Sanjay Kumar Das who was posted there w.e.f 11.02.2014 to 25.06.2014. He further submits that in view of above facts as the

petitioner is not the person due to whom delay in providing the information has occurred and as the impugned has been marked to the petitioner where

he is presently posted and that is why the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

Per contra, Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel appearing for the State Information Commission submits that representative of the petitioner has

appeared before the State Information Commission and he has provided the name of this P.I.O. and in view of that matter, order has been passed. He

further submits that Information Commission has acted in accordance with law.

Mr. Vineet Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State accepted the argument of Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the

petitioner as to the effect that the petitioner was posted at Jarmundi as P.I.O. w.e.f. 11.02.2014 to 25.06.2014, for this, he refers para 19 of the

counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court perused the impugned order dated 22.12.2014 wherein it transpires that order has been

passed against one Sanjay Kumar the then, P.I.O. and petitioner is Sanjay Kumar Das. From Annexure-6 of the writ petition it transpires that

information has already been provided on 25.04.2012 by the earlier Public Information Officer wherein the impugned order has been passed on

22.12.2014, i.e much after providing of the information. From the impugned order, it transpires that the impugned order has been passed against Sanjay

Kumar but the petitioner is Sanjay Kumar Das. The petitioner has joined the post w.e.f 11.02.2014 to 25.06.2014 thus, it transpires that order is not

against the petitioner. The apprehension of the petitioner that this order is against him is misconceived. This fact is also clear from the statement made

in para 19 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent-State.

In view of the above facts and coming to the finding that the impugned order, which has been communicated to the petitioner, it requires to be re-

considered by the State Information Commission. The impugned order dated 22.12.2014 is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the State

Information Commission to proceed in accordance with law after providing every opportunity of hearing particularly considering the proviso under

section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

The writ petition is allowed and disposed of.