Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.
Ganesh Kumar, S/o. Late Shiv Mahato - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) No.903 of 2014
Decided On : 17-01-2025
(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Sections 5 and 20(1) - Writ petition challenging penalty imposed by State Information Commission on Additional Deputy Commissioner for failure to provide requested information - The petitioner was not the designated Public Information Officer; rather, he acted as a deemed Public Information Officer by forwarding the request to the Circle Officer, who was the actual Public Information Officer - The Information Commission failed to issue notice to the Circle Officer, who was also responsible for the delay in providing information. (Paras 1, 2, 26, 40)
(B) Right to Information - Accountability of Public Information Officers - The statutory framework requires that any officer receiving a request for information must forward it to the designated Public Information Officer promptly, and failure to do so may result in penalties. (Paras 19, 22, 26)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, while serving as Additional Deputy Commissioner, was penalized by the State Information Commission for not supplying information requested by an individual. He contended that he was not the designated Public Information Officer and had forwarded the request to the Circle Officer. (Paras 1, 2)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Information Commission did not properly consider the status of the petitioner and failed to issue notice to the Circle Officer, leading to an erroneous penalty. (Paras 40, 42)
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner was liable for penalty under the Act when he was not the designated Public Information Officer and whether the Information Commission acted improperly by not notifying the Circle Officer. (Paras 6, 26)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the penalty imposed was unjust as the petitioner was not the designated Public Information Officer and the Information Commission should have considered the Circle Officer's role in the delay. (Paras 40, 42)
Result: The impugned order was quashed, and the matter was remitted to the State Information Commission for fresh consideration.
JUDGMENT :
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.
1. This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 26.08.2013 passed by the State Information Commission, whereby and whereunder, the penalty under Section 20(1)(2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 2005’) as imposed upon the petitioner, has been questioned.
2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, are required to be enumerated, which read as under:-
(i) It is the case of the petitioner that he was posted as Addl. Deputy Commissioner, since 23.02.2012 in the office of Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur. The petitioner has been designated as Public Information Officer in terms of letter no.3047 dated 06.09.2005 issued by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reform and Official Language, Govt. of Jharkhand for the purpose of providing information to the persons seeking information.
(ii) The respondent no.4, vide his application dated 10.11.2010 addressed to the respondent no.3 expressed his grievance related to mutation appeal no.04 of 2005-06 dated 10.12.2007 pending before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur against the order of Circle Officer, Jamshedpur and sought information about his letter dated 10.11.2010 and 02.12.2010. Since the matter related to Circle Officer, on receipt of letter dated 02.12.2011 under the Act, the then Addl. Deputy Commissioner cum Public Information Officer vide his letter no.2470 dated 09.12.2011 transmitted the application to the Circle Officer, Jamshedpur cum Public Information Officer under Section 6(3) of the Act, 2005 with a copy to the respondent no.4 and also informing him that the Public Information Officer in respect of his case was Circle Officer, Jamshedpur and the first appellate authority at the relevant time was Sub Divisional Officer, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur and the applicant was advised to obtain the required information by approaching the aforesaid officials. In terms of letter no.2470 dated 09.12.2011, the Circle Officer, Jamshedpur cum Public Information Officer, Jamshedpur supplied the information to the respondent no.4 and forwarded the copy of the same to the then Addl. Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur.
(iii) In spite of furnishing the information by the competent Public Information Officer, the respondent no.4 without approaching the competent authority, has filed a second appeal before the Chief Information Commissioner, Jharkhand State Information Commission.
(iv) On receipt of the same from the respondent no.2, the Commission through its Deputy Secretary vide letter no.6432 dated 19.07.2012 directed the petitioner to provide information to the respondent no.4 and submit explanation on 03.09.2012 failing which ex parte order shall be passed. Thereafter, the petitioner had also directed the Circle Officer cum Public Information Officer, Jamshedpur to comply with the directions of the respondent no.2. The Circle Officer cum Public Information Officer, Jamshedpur complied with the direction of the respondent no.2.
(v) It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondent no.4 vide his petition dated 05.11.2012 made a representation to the petitioner fully knowing that the Public Information Officer in his case, was the Circle Officer, Jamshedpur.
(vi) The petitioner, thereafter, has forwarded the representation dated 05.11.2012 of the respondent no.4 to the appropriate Public Information Officer for disposal of objections of the respondent no.4 and ensure furnishing required information.
(vii) The respondent no.2 vide order dated 29.05.2013 directed the petitioner to redress the grievance of the respondent no.4 and supply the information and submit explanation as to why punitive order be not passed for delay supply of information. Thereafter, the Circle Officer cum Public Information Officer, vide his letter no.1489 dated 22.08.2013 reported compli
The penalty imposed on a deemed Public Information Officer is improper if the designated officer is not notified or held accountable for delays in providing requested information.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the statutory duty under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to provide information to the Information Seeker, the liability of the custodian of the....
Public Information Officers can only be penalized under RTI for failures occurring during their tenure when a request was made, not retroactively for former officers' actions.
The court established that the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, 2005 should be strictly construed, and the Commissioner must ensure that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide b....
(1) There is clear distinction in between “Public Authority” within meaning of Section 2(h) and “Public Information Officer” within meaning of Section 2(m) of Right to Information Act, 2005.(2) Award....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
