Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 334 (JHR)

Anil Kumar Yadav v. State Of Jharkhand

2020-02-19

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. Sidhartha Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Ms. Shweta Singh, learned A.C. to S.C. (L &C) II for the State, Mr. Navnit Prakash, learned counsel for Respondent No.4 and Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel for the State Information Commission. 2. This writ petition has been preferred for quashing Order dated 23.4.2015 whereby a fine of Rs. 25,000/- as penalty has been imposed upon the petitioner under section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. 3. The sum and substance of the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has not been served with the Notice in terms of Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which is a condition precedent for passing any such order of penalty. He further submits that the impugned order dated 23.4.2015 is also silent on the point as to whether the requirement of giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioner under Section 20 (1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 has been fulfilled or not. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents are also not in a position to substantiate the fact as to whether the notice under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 was served upon the petitioner or not. 5. In view of the above facts and considering the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it transpires that notice is a condition precedent under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 before imposing any penalty upon the Public Information Officer and it also appears that in the impugned order dated 23.4.2015 requirement of giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioner under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 has not been fulfilled. 6. Therefore, in view of the above, impugned order dated 23.4.2015 does not sustain in the eye of law and the same is quashed. The matter is remitted back to Respondent No.3, who will decide the same after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing an order afresh. 7. This writ petition is disposed of.