Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1276 (PAT)

Sunita Devi v. State Of Bihar

2012-09-10

V.N.SINHA

body2012
ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and respondent no.2. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by respondent no.2 dated 9.5.2012, Annexure-1 in Case No.64695/11-12 whereunder appeal filed against the order dated 30.9.2011, Annexure-2 has been rejected on the ground that the information sought for are incomplete and was not submitted in the proper format with liberty to the petitioner to apply for the desired information once again giving details of the information in the proper format. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that she had applied for information vide Annexure-4 asking the Information Officer, Rural Works Department, Works Division, Jehanabad to furnish the desired documents i.e. estimate, agreement and measurement book regarding laying of road between Sahbazpur to Kharoj via Guhapakar under PMGSY scheme. Another information which was sought was about estimate, agreement and measurement book of the road laid between Uttarserthu post office to Lattan Patti. It appears having received the request for grant of information, the Information Officer, Rural Works Department, Works Division, Jehanabad under letter no.1598 dated 16.09.2011 informed the petitioner that the desired information concerning estimate, agreement and measurement book of the road laid between Uttarserthu post office and Lattan Patti can be obtained from another works division i.e. Rural Works Division No.2, Jehanbad, as the said work was executed under that division. Petitioner being not satisfied with the aforesaid information challenged the same before the appellate authority, who passed order dated 30.09.2011, Annexure-2, against which appeal was filed before the State Chief Information Commissioner, respondent no.2 who rejected the second appeal under order dated 9.5.2012. It appears from perusal of letter dated 16.9.2011 of the Information Officer, Rural Works Department, Works Division, Jehanabad that subject matter of information no.1 i.e. the road laid between Sahbazpur to Kharoj via Guhapakar was identified with reference to contractor M/s. Madan Prasad Sinha and partner Sri Ajit Kumar who executed the work for which required folio for grant of copy was also deposited by the petitioner. In spite of such deposit petitioner has not been furnished the estimate, agreement and measurement book concerning the road laid between Sahbazpur to Kharoj via Guhapakar, the State Chief Election Commissioner, respondent no.2, in my opinion, was required to have appreciated that petitioner has not been given the desired information regarding the road between Sahbazpur to Kharoj via Guhapakar as was sought by him under information no.1. 4. In appreciation of the aforesaid contention of the petitioner, I set aside the order dated 9.5.2012, Annexure-1 passed by the State Chief Information Commissioner, respondent no.2 and direct the petitioner to appear before the State Chief Information Commissioner, respondent no.2 who shall ensure that the copy of estimate, agreement and the measurement book of the road laid between Sahbazpur to Kharoj via Guhapakar by contractor M/s. Madan Prasad Sinha and partner Sri Ajit Kumar be furnished to the petitioner as early as possible, in any case within reasonable time not exceeding two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before the State Chief Information Commissioner. While giving the copy of the aforesaid documents, it shall be open for the authorities to withhold the personal information entered into the agreement form by the contractor M/s. Madan Prasad Sinha and partner Sri Ajit Kumar. So far the information concerning estimate, agreement and measurement book of the road laid between Uttarserthu post office and Lattan Patti is concerned, petitioner may ask for such information by submitting request in proper format before the Rural Works Department, Works Division No.2, Jehanabad, which should be attended to within the reasonable time, as provided in the statute. 5. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of.