SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Jhk) 543

HARISH CHANDRA MISHRA
Prabhakar Mirdha – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Altag Hussain

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.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top