Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1579 (JHR)

Lalchand Dadel v. State Information Commission

2019-09-11

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2019
1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder order dated 24.12.2014 passed in Appeal No. 834 of 2012 (Annexure 6) by the Chief Information Commissioner, by which, in exercise power conferred under Section 19(8)(b) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short 'RTI Act, 2005'), the petitioner has been held liable to make payment an amount of Rs. 50,000/-by way of compensation to be paid in favour of respondent no. 4 for the harassment meted out to him by the petitioner; as also order dated 07.04.2016, by which, the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau has issued a communication to the petitioner to deposit the demand draft of Rs. 50,000/-for its payment in favour of respondent no. 4 in compliance of order passed by Chief Information Commissioner (Annexure 6), are under challenge. Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two issues, i.e.: (I).The petitioner was appointed as First Appellate Authority and one Mr. Rakesh Kumar has been appointed as Public Information Commissioner since he was holding the post of Deputy Commissioner Establishment, Palamau, as would appear from the order dated 28.10.2013, as such submission has been made that petitioner being the First Appellate Authority, cannot be held responsible to make payment of amount of compensation. (II).The order dated 09.04.2015 has been passed by holding the petitioner liable to make payment of Rs. 50,000/-by way of compensation in exercise of power conferred under section 19 (8) (b) of the RTI Act, 2005 and while doing so, the Chief Information Commissioner has committed illegality in view of the fact that the provision of Section 19 (8) (b), which provides power upon the Second Appellate Authority to make compensation upon the public authority and not upon the Commission. According to him public authority has been defined under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005 and as such the petitioner even accepting of exercising the power of Public Information Officer, then also he cannot be held responsible for making payment of compensation, since he cannot be said to public authority within the meaning of Section 19 (8) (b) of the RTI Act, 2005. Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 has fairly submitted that matter requires consideration. Mr. Nitish Krishna, A.C to S.C. (L & C) has submitted that he will obtain instruction and file counter affidavit with regard to aforesaid legal position. Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 has fairly submitted that matter requires consideration. Mr. Nitish Krishna, A.C to S.C. (L & C) has submitted that he will obtain instruction and file counter affidavit with regard to aforesaid legal position. Considering the aforesaid submissions, the matter is adjourned to be listed after four weeks. Meanwhile, counter affidavit shall be filed by the respondents. Ad Interim Learned counsel for the petitioner insisted upon for stay of the operation of impugned order dated 24.12.2014 passed by the State Information Commissioner. This Court, after considering the legal position, as has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and as has been recorded herein above, is of the view that prima facie case has been made out by the petitioner and balance of convenience lies also in his favour in view of the fact that the petitioner, who was holding the post of First Appellate Authority even if he will be presumed to be Public Information Officer, he cannot be treated to be a public authority within the meaning of Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act, 2005, subject to objection, if any. In view of the aforesaid factual aspect and legal issues, since the Deputy Commissioner has also issued communication dated 7.4.2016 directing the petitioner to deposit a demand draft of Rs. 50,000/-to be paid in favour of respondent no. 4, hence interim order, as prayed for, if would not be passed, the petitioner will be subjected to irreparable loss. In view thereof, order dated 09.04.2015 passed in Appeal No. 834 of 2012, is kept in abeyance till the next date. List this case on 23.10.2019. Let notice be issued, both by the registered post with A/D and ordinary process, upon respondent no. 4, for which requisites etc must be filed within a week.