Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 142 (JHR)

Prabhakar Mirdha v. State of Jharkhand

2021-02-02

HARISH CHANDRA MISHRA

body2021
ORDER : Harish Chandra Mishra, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. No one appears for the State inspite of repeated calls. The respondent State Information Commission has also not taken interest in the matter and no counter-affidavit has been filed inspite of the indulgences given to it earlier. Notice was issued to the private respondent No. 4, which had been validly served in the year 2017 itself, but the respondent No. 4 has also not appeared in spite of notice. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 24.03.2015 passed by the Acting Chief Information Commissioner, Jharkhand, in Appeal No. 239/2013, communicated vide memo. No. 3979 dated 27.04.2015, as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ application, whereby the penalty of Rs. 25,000/- has been imposed upon the petitioner, being the Public Information Officer, for not supplying the information to respondent No. 4 within time. 4. From the averments made in the writ application it transpires that the respondent No. 4 had made an application for providing some information under Right to Information Act, before the Public Information Officer-cum-Circle Officer, Karmatand in the district of Jamtara, on 23.8.2012. As the said information was not furnished to the respondent No. 4, he ultimately moved before the State Information Commission for redressal of his grievances. 5. It is stated in the writ application that the petitioner on that date was not holding the charge of the Circle Officer, Karmatand. He was given the additional charge of that post on 29.10.2014, and he had no knowledge about the application of respondent No. 4. However, by the impugned order dated 24.03.2015, the Acting Chief Information Commissioner, Jharkhand, imposed the penalty of Rs. 25,000/- upon the petitioner, for not supplying the information to respondent No. 4 within time. 6. Though in the impugned order dated 24.03.2015 it is stated that notice was given to the petitioner also by the Acting Chief Information Commissioner, Jharkhand, but it is stated in the writ application that the petitioner had not received any such notice. The petitioner has accordingly, prayed for quashing the impugned order whereby penalty has been imposed upon the petitioner. 7. It is also stated in the writ application that the required information has since been furnished to the respondent No. 4 on 26.06.2015 by registered post. 8. The petitioner has accordingly, prayed for quashing the impugned order whereby penalty has been imposed upon the petitioner. 7. It is also stated in the writ application that the required information has since been furnished to the respondent No. 4 on 26.06.2015 by registered post. 8. By order dated 26.11.2019, and again by order dated 02.02.2020, time was allowed to the learned counsel for the State Information Commission for filing counter-affidavit, but no counter-affidavit has been filed so far. The State Information Commission has nowadays become non-functional as the post of the Chief Information Commissioner and all the posts of Information Commissioner have become vacant and no appointments have been made so far. Learned counsel appearing for the State Information Commission has informed this Court in another case, that he is no more the counsel for the Commission. 9. Since there is no counter-affidavit on record controverting the statements made by the writ petitioner and no one appears for the State as well in spite of repeated calls, there is no reason for disbelieving the statements made on affidavit in the writ application. 10. It is apparent from the statements in the writ application that the petitioner was not in charge of the post of Circle Officer, Karmatand, when the information was sought by the respondent No. 4 under Right to Information Act on 23.8.2012. The petitioner was given the additional charge of that post on 29.10.2014, and he has sent the required information on 26.06.2015 by registered post. As such, I find that a case is made out for interference in the impugned order dated 24.03.2015 imposing the penalty upon the petitioner, even though the information has been furnished by the petitioner after this order. It is the case of the petitioner that he had no knowledge about the application seeking the information, nor had he received the notice from the State Information Commission. 11. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 24.03.2015 passed by the Acting Chief Information Commissioner, Jharkhand, in Appeal No. 239/2013, communicated vide memo No. 3979 dated 27.04.2015, as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ application, is hereby, quashed. 12. This writ application is accordingly, allowed.