Sushil Kumar vs Jharkhand State Information Commission & Ors

The matter has been heard through video conferencing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. They have no complaint about any

audio and visual connectivity.

It is evident from the order dated 13.05.2015 (Order No.2) that a notice has been issued upon the respondent no.3, the information seeker. It further

appears from the office note that in terms of the notice issued upon the respondent no.3, the same has been reported to be validly served, but the

respondent no.3 has chosen not to appear.

This Court after taking into consideration the fact that even after service of notice upon the respondent no.3 since he has chosen not to appear, has

found it appropriate to proceed further to deal with the issue taking into consideration the fact that the notice has validly been served upon the

respondent no.3 in the year 2013.

Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner by assailing the impugned order dated 21.08.2013, vide Annexure-8, has submitted that petitioner

had joined as District Superintendent of Education, Latehar on 04.01.2013 and in that capacity he had also been assigned with the duty to act as a

Public Information Officer. The writ petitioner had received a communication from the office of the State Information Commission on 16.02.2013 for

supplying relevant documents to the respondent no.3, in pursuant to application made under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The writ

petitioner supplied the relevant information within three days from the date of communication i.e. 19.02.2013. The writ petitioner had appeared

personally before the State Information Commission and explained the things orally in pursuant to the communication dated 16.02.2013 but without

appreciating the fact that he, at the time of the request made by the respondent no.3 as under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, he had joined

on 04.01.2013 to the said post and within three days of receipt of such communication the information had been supplied but the delay of 15 months

has been attributed to the writ petitioner, which cannot be said to be justified.

His further submission is that if the proviso to Section 20(1) would be considered, the same stipulates that before imposing penalty a reasonable

opportunity of hearing, is to be provided to the concerned Public Information Officer, which has been found to be in violation of the mandate of the

Right to Information Act. According to him, the writ petitioner has denied his liability on the basis of the date of joining i.e. on 04.01.2013 but there is

no consideration by the State Information Commission.

Mr. P.A.S Pati, learned counsel appearing for the State Information Commission, has submitted that the writ petitioner has not filed any written reply

to the show cause since there is no reference of such reply in the impugned order and unless the written reply to the show cause would be filed only

then question of its consideration will come.

According to him, if there would be written reply to the show cause, the State Information Commission would have an occasion to assess the liability

in causing delay either by the writ petitioner or by his predecessor in office who has acted as Public Information Officer prior to joining of the writ

petitioner because liability is to be casted under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act. He further submits that in absence of any written reply

to show cause, the order of penalty may not be interfered with.

At this Juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner has sought for adjournment for two weeks to seek instruction, as to whether any written reply has

been submitted by the petitioner before the State Information Commissioner.

This Court, after appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of the parties and more particularly looking into the impugned order, wherein there is

no reference of written reply show cause, as such, deem it fit and proper to call upon the petitioner to file written reply, if submitted, on record before

the next date of hearing.

As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, let the matter be posted on 15.01.2021.

Till then, the interim order dated 13.05.2015 shall operate. Office is directed to reflect the name of Mr. P.A.S Pati, learned counsel for the respondent

in the daily cause list.