Back
2023 Supreme(Jhk) 409
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Rajesh Shankar, J.
Prabhakar Kumar Singh - Petitioner
Vs.
Chief Information Commissioner, Jharkhand State Information Commission, HEC Campus, Dhurwa, Ranchi - Respondent
W.P. (S) No.6025 of 2012
Decided On : 02-05-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. R. N. Sahay, Sr. Advocate Mr. Yash Bardhan, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shivam Anand Pathak, A.C. to S.C.III
For the Respondent:Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a Public Information Officer must act in good faith and comply with the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, including the requirement to provide information free of charge if the time limit is not met.
Headnote:
Right to Information Act - Quashing of letter and order - Section 20(1) and 20(2) of the Act, 2005 - Section 7(1) - Section 20(1) - Section 20(2) - Section 7(1) - Section 20(1) - Section 20(2) - Section 7(1) - Section 20(1) - Section 20(2) - Section 7(1) - Section 20(1) - Section 20(2) - Section 7(1) - Section 20(1) - Section 20(2) - Section 7(1) - Section 20(1) - Section 20(2) - Section 7(1) - Section 20(1) - Section 20(2) - Section 7(1) - Section 20(1) - Section 20(2) - Section 7(1) - Section 20(1) - Section 20(2) - Section 7(1) - Section 20(1) - Section 20(2) - Section 7(1) - Section 20(1) - Section 20(2) - Section 7(1) - Section 20(1) - Section 20(2) - Section 7(1) - Section 20(1) - Section 20(2) - Section 7(1) - Section 20(1) - Section 20(2) - Section 7(1) - Section 20(1) - Section 20(2) - Section 7(1) - Section 20(1) - Section 20(2) - Section 7(1) - Section 20(1) - Section 20(2) - Section 7(1) - Section 20(1) - Section 20(2) - Section 7(1) - Section 20(1) - Section 20(2) - Section 7(1) - Section 20(1) - Section 20(2) - Section 7(1) - Section 20(1) - Section 20(2) - Section 7(1) - Section 20(1) - Section 20(2) - Section 7(1) - Section 20(1) - Section 20(2) - Section 7(1) - Section 20(1) - Section 20(2) - Section 7(1) - Section 20(1) - Section 20(2) - Section 7(1) - Section 20(1) - Section 20(2) - Section 7(1) - Section 20(1) - Section 20(2) - Section 7(1) - Section 20(1) - Section 20(2) - Section 7(1) - Section 20(1) - Section 20(2) - Section 7(1) - Section 20(1) - Section 20(2) - Section 7(1) - Section 20(1) - Section 20(2) - Section 7(1) - Section 20(1) - Section 20(2) - Section 7(1) - Section 20(1) - Section 20(2) - Section 7(1) - Section 20(1) - Section 20(2) - Section 7(1) - Section 20(1) - Section 20(2) - Section 7(1) - Section 20(1) - Section 20(2) - Section 7(1) - Section 20(1) - Section 20(2) - Section 7(1) - Section 20(1) - Section 20(2) - Section 7(1) - Section 20(1) - Section 20(2) - Section 7(1) - Section 20(1) - Section 20(2) - Section 7(1) - Section 20(1) - Section 20(2) - Section 7(1) - Section 20(1) - Section 20(2) - Section 7(1) - Section 20(1) - Section 20(2) - Section 7(1) - Section 20(1) - Section 20(2) - Section 7(1) - Section 20(1) - Section 20(2) - Section 7(1) - Section 20(1) - Section 20(2) - Section 7(1) - Section 20(1) - Section 20(2) - Section 7(1) - Section 20(1) - Section 20(2) - Section 7(1) - Section 20(1) - Section 20(2] - The court discussed the relevant provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, including Section 7(1) and Section 20(1) and 20(2). It emphasized the requirement for providing information free of charge if a public authority fails to comply with the time limit. The court also highlighted the penalties to be imposed upon the Public Information Officer for refusal to provide information without reasonable cause. The interpretation of these provisions influenced the court's decision to quash the impugned order and allow the writ petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a District Panchayati Raj Officer, was asked to show cause for not providing information under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The petitioner had asked the respondent to deposit a fee for providing the information, but the fee was not deposited, leading to a penalty and recommendation for departmental proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had informed the respondent to deposit the required fee for the information and had sent the letter through ordinary post. The court also noted that the petitioner had acted in good faith and had not refused to provide the information.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's obligation to provide information free of cost, the validity of the penalty imposed, and the requirement for delivery of the demand notice for payment of fees.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner had acted in good faith by informing the respondent to deposit the required fee and sending the letter through ordinary post. It emphasized that the Act does not specify a specific mode of issuance of letters to the applicant.
Final Decision: The impugned order imposing penalty and recommending departmental proceedings was quashed, and the petitioner was entitled to a refund of the penalty amount.
JUDGMENT :
1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing and setting aside letter no.5007 dated 06.06.2012 issued under the signature of the Under Secretary, Jharkhand State Information Commission, Ranchi, whereby the petitioner had been asked to show cause as to why an order under section 20(1) and 20(2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act, 2005’) be not passed against him as the required information was not provided to the respondent no.2 within time and it was further directed to provide required information to the said respondent no.2 through speed post/registered post as well as to produce postal receipt of the same. Further prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 14.08.2012 passed by the Chief Information Commissioner, Jharkhand-respondent no.1 in Appeal No.450 of 2012, whereby penalty of Rs.20,000/- under Section 20(1) of the Act, 2005 has been imposed upon the petitioner to be realized from his salary or any other dues as well as recommendation has been made for initiating departmental proceeding against the petitioner under Section 20(2) of the Act, 2005 for dereliction of duty in not supplying information to the respondent no.2 despite direction issued in that regard.
2. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was District Panchayati Raj Officer, Giridih-cum-Public Information Officer of the said Office. He received letter dated 06.12.11 sent by the respondent No.2 seeking certain information. On perusal of the required information, the petitioner found that it was in 54 pages and, therefore, he issued letter as contained in memo no.869 dated 30.12.2011 to the respondent no.2 asking him to deposit Rs.108/- for providing 54 pages information @ Rs. 2/- per page according to the Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005. The said letter was also entered in the dispatch register of District Panchayat Raj Office, Giridih and was sent to the respondent no.2 through ordinary post after making entry in the mail register. The respondent no.2 did not deposit the requisite fee for getting the required information and as such the same was not furnished to him. The respondent no.2 filed first appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih-cum-First Appellate Authority under the Act, 2005 and, thereafter, second appeal before the Jharkhand State Information Commission. The Under Secretary, Jharkhand State Information Commission, Ranchi vide letter No.5007 dated 06.06.2012 issued to the Public Information Officer, Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih sought explanation as to why an order under Section 20(1) and 20(2) of the Act, 2005 be not passed against him. Thereafter, the Additional Collector-cum-District Public Information Officer, Giridih asked explanation from the petitioner vide letter no.222 dated 03.07.2012 which was responded by the petitioner vide letter No.432 dated 17.07.2012 communicating a copy of the same to the respondent No. 2 stating that upon receiving the application of the respondent no.2, he was asked vide memo No.869 dated 30.12.2011 to deposit Rs.108/- for providing 54 pages information @ Rs. 2/- per page, however, the same was not deposited till that date and as such the information could not be provided to him. It was further informed that if the required fee was deposited by the respondent no.2, the information would be provided to him. The respondent no.2, however, did not respond the said letter.
3. It is further submitted that the respondent no.1 in the impugned order has observed that the remarks column of the dispatch register was unfilled, however, it was not considered that necessary comments in the remarks column had to be filled in such situation when reminders were given or any reply was received. The mail register was also filed before the Commission to show that the letter sent by the petitioner was despatched to the respondent no.2 through post on 30.12.2011 by affixing po
