High Court disposed of a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition challenging the rejection of prayer to call entire voluminous tender files. Held that specific documents only need to be called, not entire files, and petitioner can prove defence via original RTI answer.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
Cr.M.P. No. 329 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 329 of 2023
Mukesh Kumar Singh @ Mukesh Singh, aged about 49 years, son of Ram Rekha Singh, resident of near Kali Mandir, Pandarpala Purb, Bishunpur, P.O. & P.S.- Bishunpur, District- Dhanbad
…... Petitioner
Versus The State of Jharkhand ...... Opposite Party For the Petitioners : Mr. R.S.Mazumdar, Sr. Adv. For the State : Ms. Vandana Bharti, Addl. PP
P R E S E N T
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2
Cr.M.P. No. 329 of 2023
evidence, the petition was filed by the petitioner with a prayer to direct the office of Senior Divisional Elect. Engineer (TR-D), E.C. Rly, Dhanbad, to produce five nos. of tender files, the description of which has been mentioned in the information provided to the petitioner, under the Right to Information Act, regarding tender dated 26.12.2012. It further transpires that the petitioner sought information under RTI Act from the Senior Divisional Elect. Engineer (TR-D), E.C. Rly, Dhanbad and in respect to the said application for information, Senior Divisional Elect. Engineer (TR-D), E.C. Rly, Dhanbad has supplied certain information, which according to the petitioner, goes to show that the petitioner did not submit any tender documents in the tender, in which the deceased also submitted the tender and to prove this fact, the petitioner filed a petition praying for producing the tender files. Learned Sessions Judge considered that the tender files are voluminous documents and the tender files are not the subject matter of the case and the petition has been filed only to delay the early disposal of the case and he rejected the prayer to call for all the tender files.
3
Cr.M.P. No. 329 of 2023
Divisional Elect. Engineer (TR-D), E.C. Rly, Dhanbad be directed to produce five numbers of tender files.
4
Cr.M.P. No. 329 of 2023
proving the original answer furnished by the Senior Divisional Elect. Engineer (TR-D), E.C. Rly, Dhanbad to the petitioner under Right to Information Act and for the same, there is no necessity nor any relevance to call for the entire files relating to the tender. Hence this court does not find any illegality in the impugned order by which, learned Special Judge has declined to call for entire five numbers of tender files. Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, is disposed of with the observation that if the petitioner is so advised, may prove the answers given by him, by Senior Divisional Elect. Engineer (TR-D), E.C. Rly, Dhanbad, under the RTI Act, in his defence evidence.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 3rd May, 2023 Smita /AFR
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial judge committed an error in law by rejecting the petition to call for entire voluminous tender files without specifying particular documents.
Whether the petitioner can prove defence by producing the original answer furnished under RTI Act instead of calling entire tender files.
Whether the impugned order rejecting prayer for call of five tender files is illegal and needs to be set aside.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mukesh Kumar Singh @ Mukesh Singh
The State of Jharkhand
Anil Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
