Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 433 (JHR)

Sanjay Kumar Prasad v. State Of Jharkhand

2020-03-03

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr.Sachin Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjoy Piprawal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State Information Commission and Mr. Vikram Nath Shahdeo, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State. 2. Inspite of valid service of notice, respondent no.3 has not appeared. 3. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 19.08.2013 passed by the State Information Commission in Appeal No.1155 of 2012 whereby a sum of Rs.25,000/- has been imposed as penalty on the petitioner. 4. Mr. Sachin Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the information seeker has earlier filed a petition for certain information before the then Public Information Officer in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Giridih. He further submits that subsequently the petitioner has joined on that post. He submits that the said information has already been provided to the information seeker. The information seeker has also sent a petition to the Commission informing that the information has already been provided by letter dated 17.08.2013 which is brought on record by way of Annexure-7 to the writ petition. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner draws the attention of the Court to the order dated 11.11.2013 wherein it has been recorded that the information seeker has informed on 16.08.2013 by Fax to the Commission that he has received the information. He submits that in that view of the matter, the impugned order cannot sustain in the eye of law. The petitioner has unnecessarily saddled with such penalty which is against the mandate of section 20 of the Right to Information Act. 5. Per contra, Mr. Sanjoy Piprawal, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent State Information Commission submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order and he submits that no show cause has been filed. 6. The Court has perused the impugned order as well as the Annexure-7. It transpires from Annexure-7 that the information seeker wrote a letter to the Commission saying therein that he has already received the information. This fact is further supplemented by the order dated 11.11.2013 contained in Annexure-10. This aspect of the matter has not been considered at the time of passing of the impugned order dated 19.08.2013. In that view of the matter, the impugned order cannot sustain in the eye of law. 7. This fact is further supplemented by the order dated 11.11.2013 contained in Annexure-10. This aspect of the matter has not been considered at the time of passing of the impugned order dated 19.08.2013. In that view of the matter, the impugned order cannot sustain in the eye of law. 7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 19.08.2013 is quashed and the writ petition [W.P.(C) No.553 of 2014] stands allowed and disposed of.