Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 715 (JHR)

Priya Dubey v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-04-02

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

body2018
JUDGMENT Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. – Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 24.02.2009 passed in Appeal Case Nos. 1275/08 and 1389/08 passed by the Jharkhand State Information Commission whereby the Commission has been pleased to pass strictures against the petitioner for not supplying certain information and also imposed a fine of Rs. 25,000/- to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner and also recommended to the Home Secretary and Director General of Police, Jharkhand to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits as follows: a. The information sought for relates to Bokaro, Sector IV P.S. Case No. 85/01 dated 13.12.01 which was a case related to Essential Commodities Act corresponding to G.R. No. 1185/01 and the case was pending before the competent authority. b. The information which was sought for vide application dated 8.8.2008 as contained in Annexure-1 related to correspondences which were made during the investigation of the aforesaid Case. c. Within one month from the receipt of the application under right to information, the petitioner vide letter dated 29.08.2008 directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Crime Section of the office asking them to provide para wise compliance. d. However, the petitioner vide letter dated 13.09.2008 was informed by the Crime Section that the said documents were not available as the entire investigation was concluded in the year 2003 itself and that as per the dispatch register dated 6.05.2004 the records are with Commissioner-cum-Secretary Agriculture Sugarcane Development Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi and the information could be obtained by the applicant from the said department. e. In the meantime, on 09.09.08 an appeal was filed by the applicant by way of first appeal under the Right to Information Act f. The petitioner vide letter dated 06.11.08 informed the respondent no 3 that the information sought by him is related to the aforesaid P.S. Case and the information could be obtained from the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Agriculture Sugar Cane Development Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi. Along with this letter the applicant was provided a copy of the memo dated 31.01.03 and for rest of the information the applicant was asked to approached the competent authority for getting the information. Along with this letter the applicant was provided a copy of the memo dated 31.01.03 and for rest of the information the applicant was asked to approached the competent authority for getting the information. g. Vide letter dated 17.12.08 the complete information was duly provided to the applicant however, in the meantime, the applicant had filed second appeal before the State Information Commissioner. h. The Respondent no 3 had filed two appeals in connection with the same application one he had sent by post and the other he had personally filed and the two cases were numbered as Appeal Case Nos. 1275/08 and 1389/08 and both case cases were tagged and disposed of vide the common order which is impugned in this writ petition. i. The petitioner submits that a copy of the letter dated 17.12.2008 was also marked to the under Secretary, Jharkhand State Information commission, Ranchi. The petitioner also submits that vide Annexure-7 dated 27.01.09, the Secretary, Jharkhand, State Information Commission, Ranchi was again intimated the fact that the all the relevant information has already been provided to the applicant. j. When the petitioner again received notice from the Respondent no 2, the petitioner again vide letter dated 14.02.2009 which was duly received in the office of the Respondent no 2 that the petitioner had already supplied the information to the Respondent no 3. k. The counsel for the petitioner by referring the impugned order as contained in Annexure-10 to the writ petition submits that neither the Respondent No.3 nor the petitioner had appeared on 24.02.2009 when the matter was decided. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the applicant after receiving the relevant information stopped appearing before the Information Commissioner as there was no grievance left to be redressed. The petitioner submits that it has been recorded in the order that the matter was heard on 23.12.08, 21.01.09 and 20.02.09 and it has, further, been recorded that the petitioner had neither appeared nor any reply was sent to the Commission in connection with the information which was provided to the applicant. The petitioner submits that it has been recorded in the order that the matter was heard on 23.12.08, 21.01.09 and 20.02.09 and it has, further, been recorded that the petitioner had neither appeared nor any reply was sent to the Commission in connection with the information which was provided to the applicant. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 24.02.09 is apparently perverse in view of the fact that at least there are three documents i.e. letters dated 18.12.08 ; 27.01.09 and 14.02.09 whereby intimation was given to the Under Secretary, Jharkhand State Information Commission, Ranchi regarding furnishing of the entire information to the Respondent no 3, but, it appears that these documents were not placed before the learned Commission which led to passing of the impugned order. l. The petitioner submits that as the petitioner has taken all possible steps for furnishing information to the applicant and ultimately, the information required by the applicant was duly provided much before the final order dated 24.02.2009 and accordingly the punishments which was imposed against the petitioner is fit to be set-aside. 4. Counsel for the respondent no. 3 did not dispute the fact that the information has already been received. He submits that there has been some delay on the part of the petitioner in processing of the application and accordingly the impugned order has been rightly passed. 5. After hearing the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this court finds that the application for information was made on 08.08.2008 and the necessary steps were taken in connection with providing the information by the petitioner on 29.08.08 i.e. within the period of one month, and ultimately, admittedly the information was duly provided to the Respondent no 3 . Moreover, the information related to a matter related to a criminal case instituted and the information could have been gathered by filing application for certified copies of the relevant documents from the court. 6. Moreover, the information related to a matter related to a criminal case instituted and the information could have been gathered by filing application for certified copies of the relevant documents from the court. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that there has been no intentional delay or laches on the part of the petitioner and the fact that required information was already provided to the applicant prior to passing of the impugned order was not brought to the notice of the learned Commission although same was duly communicated to the office of the learned commission vide letters dated 27.01.2009 and 14.02.2009 as contained in annexure 7 and 8 of the writ petition. 7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 24.02.09 passed in Appeal No. 1275/2008 and 1389/08 issued under the signature of the Under Secretary, Jharkhand, State Information Commission, Ranchi as contained in memo no. 1845 dated 28.02.2009 is , hereby, quashed and set aside. 8. The writ petition is allowed.