Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1277 (GAU)

Vantan Murry @ Vanthan Lotha v. State of Nagaland

2025-08-05

SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND

body2025
JUDGMENT : SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J. Heard the learned counsel Ms. Obangnenla Longchar for the petitioner, learned Sr. Government Advocate. Ms. S. Mere for the respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4 & 5 and learned counsel Mr. Limawapang for the respondent No. 2. 2. I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection. 3. The petitioner in this case is Sri. Vanta Murry @ Vanthan Lotha, whereas, the respondents No. 1, 3 4 & 5 are The state of Nagaland represented by the Chief Secretary, The Agriculture Production and Commissioner and Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Nagaland Agriculture Department, Director the Directorate of Agriculture and The District Agriculture Officer respectively. The respondent No. 2 is the Nagaland Information Commission through the Chief Information Commissioner. 4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the modification of the decision of the Nagaland Information Commission vide No. NIC/APPEAL-47/2022-23, dated Kohima the 22th May, 2023, more particularly, Annexure-10 of the petition and also by the decision dated 30th June, 2023 vide No.AGR/GEN-06/2009 (Pt) dated Kohima the 30 June, 2023, Annexure-11 of the writ petition. 5. An RTI application was filed by the petitioner on 09.11.2022 which is reproduced herein below verbatim: "Decision taken during consultative meeting on the land issue at Old DAO Office Complex, Wokha, held on 04-03-2021 under the Chairmanship of the Agriculture Production Commissioner" as clearly stated in Office Notification NO AGR/GEN-6/2009, dated 5/3/2021. (Enclosure-1) 2. Committee Report with all relevant documents and cadastral survey as directed by Office Notification dated 5/3/2021 3. Meeting convened (Enclosure-2 call for the meeting through whatsapp for your ready reference) by the APC and Commissioner & Secretary on the 27th September, 2021 (a) Meeting Minutes with Attendance Sheet of 27th September, 2021, and (b) Video recording of meeting proceedings of 27th September, 2021 with the land owner party; (c) Decision of the 27th September, 2021 meeting as assured to undersigned. “ 6. However, item No. 2 and 3 of the RTI Applications were not furnished to the applicant/petitioner. The petitioner then preferred an appeal and vide Letter No. AGR/RTI-2/48/2019/884 dated Kohima, the 13th January, 2023 the first appellate authority sent a reply that the Government stood by its earlier reply dated 21.11.2022 and the Government was yet to take decision or approve the report of the committee and thus, the report of the committee could not be furnished. The petitioner then preferred an appeal and vide Letter No. AGR/RTI-2/48/2019/884 dated Kohima, the 13th January, 2023 the first appellate authority sent a reply that the Government stood by its earlier reply dated 21.11.2022 and the Government was yet to take decision or approve the report of the committee and thus, the report of the committee could not be furnished. The petitioner was also apprised that the notification dated 25th September 2009 issued by the Department of Land Revenue states that “No claim for land compensation would be entertained by the Government for land falling under the British occupied territory…” 7. An appeal under Section 19 (3) of the RTI Act, 2005 (The Act of 2005 for short) was preferred by the applicant on 14.02.2023. 8. A notice for hearing on 19th April, 2023 was circulated vide No.NIC/APPEAL-47/2022-23 dated 30th March, 2023 and the proceedings of the hearing and the decision arrived at in the hearing vide No.NIC/APPEAL-47/2022-23/1955 dated Kohima 28th April, 2023. The observations and findings in the hearing relating to Query No. 2 was that :- The final report of the committee on land issue at Old DAO Office Complex, Wokha was submitted to the Agriculture Department on April, 2021 and its recommendations are still under active examination and consideration. However, since eviction was involved, the information cannot be disclosed at that point of time under Section 8(1)(h) of the Act of 2005. It was also observed that the final report of the committee was only recommendatory in nature and does not fall under the exemptions as well as cadastral survey by the Government cannot be exempted from disclosure. (8.1) Regarding Query No 3:- a meeting was called on 27.09.2009 at 12:00 Noon at the request of the applicant and there was no official correspondence by the department in calling the meeting and no attendance and videography were taken. 9. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is amply clear that a meeting was held in the month of April, 2021. It is unfathomable that when a meeting was held and attended by Officers in the higher hierarchy, there would be no video recordings or proceedings. The OM No. APPT(B)-8/6/68 dated Kohima 14.09.1976, indicates that verbal discussions and minutes of the meetings ought to be recorded. 10. It is unfathomable that when a meeting was held and attended by Officers in the higher hierarchy, there would be no video recordings or proceedings. The OM No. APPT(B)-8/6/68 dated Kohima 14.09.1976, indicates that verbal discussions and minutes of the meetings ought to be recorded. 10. Thereafter on 8th May, 2023 vide Letter No. AGR/GEN-6/2009 (Pt- 1) the PIO and the Private Secretary to the Government submitted a request for modification of the Nagaland Information Commission’s decision dated 28th April, 2023 in Para-1. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the request was clandestinely made as no copies were furnished to the petitioner. After this request vide modification of the decision No.NIC/APPEAL-47/2022-23 dated Kohima the 22nd May, 2023 the final decision dated 28.04.2023 was modified and the committee was allowed to furnish the report to the appellant within 3(three) months. The petitioner is aggrieved as time was extended from 15(fifteen) days to 3(three) months, providing time to the department to submit the report. 12. The petitioners were apprised about the extension of time to 3(three) months from 15(fifteen) days only after the decision was taken. It is further contended that the respondent authorities acted beyond jurisdiction because there is no provision in the statute (Act of 2005) to review its own order and thus the order is liable to be set aside and quashed, as the order was passed in total disregard of the principles of natural Justice. 13. The Petitioner is also aggrieved by the decision vide No.AGR/GEN-06/2009 (Pt) dated Kohima, 30th June, 2023 wherein the earlier committee’s report was set aside and a new committee was set up on land issues at Old DAO Office area Wokha and the committee was directed to submit its reports within 3 months from the date of setting up of the new committee. It was also decided that the matter on the land issues of the same area shall be placed before the Advisors/Minister-in-Charge along with the report of the new committee and to write to the CIC stating that the Government is in consideration of the case and accordingly it has set up a new committee (Annexure-11). 14. Per contra learned Govt. Advocate on behalf of respondents No. 1, 3, 4 & 5 laid stress in her arguments that the committee’s report has to be forwarded to the Government for approval. 15. 14. Per contra learned Govt. Advocate on behalf of respondents No. 1, 3, 4 & 5 laid stress in her arguments that the committee’s report has to be forwarded to the Government for approval. 15. The learned Senior Government Advocate has also submitted that in the modified Order dated 22.05.2023, impugned by the petitioner, it is reflected that the commission decided that the committee report shall be furnished to the applicant only after the Government has taken action on the recommendation of the committee and for which 3(three) months time was allowed as requested. 16. It is further submitted that the first Committee report has already been nullified owing to lack of documentary evidence and of course on setting up of a new committee vide notification No. AGR/GEN-6/2009(Pt) dated Kohima, the 25th August, 2023. Annexure-E of the Affidavit- in-Opposition submitted by respondents No. 1, 3, 4 & 5 is the notification. It is submitted that the reply to the queries which could be furnished have already been provided to the appellant but the undocumented minutes and proceedings of the meeting could not be furnished to the appellant and thus a new committee was set up after nullifying the first Committee report. 17. The learned Sr. Government Advocate has drawn the attention of this Court to the Nagaland Rules of Executive Business Part III Departmental Disposal of Business (A) General wherein as per Rule 29 “(1) A Secretary may ask to see the papers in any Department, other than the Finance Department and Departments under the Chief Secretary, if such papers are required for the disposal of a case in his Department. Provided that for the Departments under the Chief Secretary, the latter may consider the request of the Secretary and may allow the papers to be seen by a Secretary. Provided further that, if a Department feels that a case should not be shown to other Departments, the matter will be placed before the Chief Secretary for orders. Provided that for the Departments under the Chief Secretary, the latter may consider the request of the Secretary and may allow the papers to be seen by a Secretary. Provided further that, if a Department feels that a case should not be shown to other Departments, the matter will be placed before the Chief Secretary for orders. (6) (a) All papers relating to any matter, that may have to be submitted to the Cabinet or to the Chief Minister, shall be submitted through the Chief Secretary, who will then forward the same with his comments, if any; (b) The Chief Secretary also may, on the orders of the Chief Minister or of any Minister or of his own motion, ask to see paper relating to any case in any Department and any such request by him shall be complied with by the Secretary of the Department concerned; (c) The Chief Secretary may, after examination of any case requisitioned by him on his motion or on the orders of any Minister, submit it for orders of the Minister-in-charge. 31. If a question arises as to the Department to which a case properly belongs, the matter shall be referred for the decision of the Chief Secretary who will, if necessary, obtain the orders of the Chief Minister.” 18. It is further submitted that the second Committee report is yet to be submitted and placed before the Government. 19. Learned Counsel Mr. Limawapang for the respondent No. 2 has submitted that the modified order impugned by the petitioner is also in terms with the earlier order dated. 28.04.2023. Thus, the order impugned by the petitioner has not prejudiced the petitioner at all. 20. In reply the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that at first blush, the modified order may not appear to be prejudicial but the review was against the principles of Natural Justice. The petitioner is highly prejudiced by the decision dated 30th June 2023, which was arrived at with mala fide. 21. The respondents were indeed directed to submit their report within 3 months but no report has been submitted, after the modified order dated 22.05.2023 was passed. The petitioner has been highly prejudiced by the procrastination. The petitioner is highly prejudiced by the decision dated 30th June 2023, which was arrived at with mala fide. 21. The respondents were indeed directed to submit their report within 3 months but no report has been submitted, after the modified order dated 22.05.2023 was passed. The petitioner has been highly prejudiced by the procrastination. Thereby, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondents No. 1, 3 and 4 including the newly formed committee (vide notification dated 25th August, 2023) to submit their report before the Government within 3 (three) months form the date of this order. When the department submits the report, the petitioner may apply afresh for information under the Act of 2005 if so advised. 22. In terms of the above observations this petition stands disposed of.