IMPORTANT POINT
Adherence to the principles of natural justice and compliance with the Right to Information Act, 2005, including the imposition of penalties and compensation, must be in accordance with the statutory provisions and principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

The writ petitioner who suffered dismissal of W.P.(C) No. 3569 of 2012 has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.

2. Before the writ Court, the order dated 16th May 2011 passed by the Jharkhand State Information Commission in Appeal Case No. 1462 of 2010 was put to challenge.

3. The writ Court has dismissed W.P.(C) No. 3569 of 2012 after the following consideration:

“After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on the basis of the materials brought on record, it appears that the writ petitioner Kumari Ranjana, Child Development Project Officer has not annexed the documents to establish that information sought for by the appellant/respondent no. 2 Soukat Ali under Right to Information Act, 2005 was supplied within time, rather the Letter No. 147 dated 15.04.2010 itself shows that the information was provided on 15.04.2010 only after preferring the appeal before the Jharkhand State Information Commission by appellant/respondent no. 2 Soukat Ali, which was registered as Appeal No. 1462/2010.

Under the aforesaid circumstances, in absence of any documentary evidence brought on record by the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to accept that information under Right to Information Act was invoked on 25.03.2010.

This Court has perused the order passed by the Information Commissioner and has found that the officer was not diligent in pursuing the matter. The officer has not appeared before the Commission on 01.03.2011, though on 01.04.2011, the date was fixed for judgment on 16.05.2011, as such, this Court has no reason to interfere with the same.

So far the penalty, which has been imposed against the officer to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- under Section 20 (1) & (2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 is concerned, this Court is satisfied that this penalty is appropriate as the appellant/respondent no. 2 has to move from Dumka to Ranchi for his legal rights.

So far compensation which has been awarded against the Department is concerned, the same cannot be assailed by the writ petitioner as the same is against the Department. The Department may prefer writ petition for assailing the same, as such, the impugned order does not require any interference.

Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed.”

4. Mr. Rahul Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that before the powers under sub-section 2 to section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 are exercised to impose penalty upon the delinquent government officer, the Jharkhand State Information Commission is required to consider the rival claims and record a finding that there has been persistent failure on part of the government officer in not supplying the requisite information within the stipulated time.

5. This submission has been made by the learned counsel for the appellant with reference to the order dated 16th May 2011 which according to the learned counsel for the appellant is cryptic and does not reflect adjudication as contemplated under sub-section 2 to section 20.

6. To fortify his submission, the learned counsel for the appellant has referred to “Manohar Vs. State of Maharashtra and another” (2012) 13 SCC 14 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:

“15. The State Information Commissions exercise very wide and certainly quasi-judicial powers. In fact, their functioning is akin to the judicial system rather than the executive decision-making process. It is a settled principle of law and does not require us to discuss this principle with any elaboration that adherence to the principles of natural justice is mandatory for such Tribunal or bodies discharging such functions.

16. The State Information Commission has been vested with wide powers including imposition of penalty or taking of disciplinary action against the employees. Exercise of such power is bound to adversely affect or bring civil consequences to the delinquent. Thus, the provisions relating to penalty