Disposed

Aziar Rahman v. Gyan Jyoti Dutta

Gauhati HC26 Apr 2022Cont.Cas(C)/397/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This contempt petition addressed the petitioner's complaint that the information under the RTI Act was not provided in certified copy form. The Court held that certified copies are not essential for RTI applications and found substantial compliance since the information was furnished based on a consent order. The validity of the underlying consent was not examined.

What the court decided

AI extract

Aziar Rahman Vs Gyan Jyoti Dutta — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/2

¶2

GAHC010168102021

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/397/2021

¶5

AZIAR RAHMAN

¶6

S/O LATE TOFAZ UDDIN, R/O VILL. FATTAPARA, P.O. SUKCHAR, P.S. SUKCHAR, DIST. SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR, ASSAM, PIN 783128

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

GYAN JYOTI DUTTA

¶9

ASSTT. SETTLEMENT OFFICER (ASO), MANKACHAR CIRCLE, P.O. AND P.S. MANKACHAR, DIST. SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR, ASSAM, PIN 783131

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. L R MAZUMDER

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : MR D NATH

¶12

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

¶13

ORDER

¶14

26.04.2022

¶15

Heard Mr. N. Z. Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Nath, the learned Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the sole respondent.

¶16

Page No.# 2/2

¶17

Pursuant to order of this Court dated 16.08.2021, passed in WP(C)/3031/2021, the petitioner has been furnished with the information by communication dated 22.11.2021 under Memo No. MKC(S)-13/2015/64 issued under the signature of Assistant Settlement Officer, Mankachar Revenue Circle. The said communication reflects that on the basis of consent, given by Settlement Officer dated 30.05.2007, a plot of land measuring 1 Bigha 2 Katha and 10 Lechas of land was recorded in the name of Abdul Kader S/o Late Babu Ali. Though such information has been given, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that these are not certified copies. He further contends that the copy of the order dated 30.05.2007 is not given to him.

¶18

However, this Court is of the considered opinion that certified copy is not essentially to be given in an application under RTI and since the order dated 30.05.2007, itself reflects that correction was done on the basis of its consent and since information has been given, there is substantial compliance of the order dated 16.08.2021 passed in WP(C)/3031/2021.

¶19

However, this Court is not expressing any opinion on the validity of such consent or validity of any settlement made in favour of the respondent No. 2. The petitioner is at liberty to assail such consent or order in appropriate forum of law.

¶20

With the aforesaid observation, this contempt petition is closed.

¶21

JUDGE

¶22

Comparing Assistant

Aziar Rahman v. Gyan Jyoti Dutta

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Aziar Rahman v. Gyan Jyoti Dutta

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dayaram Narzary Vs Pramod Kr. Brahma

Rashmi Dutta Roy (Dass) Vs B Kalyan Chakravarty and 2 Ors.

Geeta Mihu Vs Pankaj Kumar Jha (Ias) and 6 Ors.

Satish India Boro Vs Ashim Khurana and Anr.

Sultana Begum Mazumder Vs Syedain Abbasi, IAS and 2 Ors.

Surjya Hazarika and 8 Ors. Vs Preetom Saikia

Lobsang Tsering Vs Reaman Boruah and Anr.

Sarbashri Basumatary Vs Jagadish Prasad Brahma

Biren Hazarika Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Niramoy Ranjan Dey and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Makhan Chandra Sarmah @ Makhan Sarma Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Nandeswar Hazarika Vs Niraj Verma and 2 Ors.

Debabrata Roy Vs Niraj Verma, IAS and Anr.

Sultana Begum Mazumder Vs Syedain Abbasi, IAS and 2 Ors.