Dismissed

Srinarayan Vigyan Prabhakar v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC2 Apr 2024WPC/3753/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A superannuated former Public Information Officer challenged a State Information Commission order directing compensation of Rs.30,000 for failure to furnish RTI information on a land acquisition case. The court held he lacked locus standi, as compensation was directed at the office, not him personally, and dismissed the writ petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Srinarayan Vigyan Prabhakar Vs The State Of Jharkhand… — RTI and Transparency | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 3753 of 2016

¶2

Srinarayan Vigyan Prabhakar son of late Yogendra Kumar Verma resident of 104, Brijnandan Apartment, P.O. & P.S.-Hazaribagh, Dist.-Hazaribagh

¶3

.... Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

Chairman, State Information Commission, Engineer Hostel No.2, HEC Campus, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Dist.-Ranchi

¶7

Under Secretary, State Information Commission, Engineer Hostel No.-2, HEC Campus, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Dist.-Ranchi

¶8

Suresh Mahato, son of late Jaylal Mahto resident of Bhuli D Block, Shakti Market, Dhanbad, P.O.-Bhuli, P.S.-Bank More, Dist.-Dhanbad

¶9

Respondents

¶10

P R E S E N T

¶11

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶12

….. For the Petitioners : Mr. Amit Kr. Verma, Advocate : Mr. Ashish Kr. Thakur, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Advocate : Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, Advocate : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate : Mr. Om Prakash Tiwari, GP III …..

¶13

By the Court:-

¶14

Heard the parties.

¶15

This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issue of appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) for quashing the order dated 02.01.2015 passed in Information Appeal Case No.206 of 2012 by

¶16

W.P. (C) No.3753 of 2016

¶17

¶18

which the Public Information Officer-cum-Additional Collector (In-charge Revenue Section), office of Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad has been directed to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/and has been directed to furnish the information to the private respondent no.4 of this writ petition.

¶19

The brief facts of the case is that the respondent no.4 filed an application under the provisions of the Right to Information Act for giving certain information in respect of the land acquisition proceeding vide LA Case No. 6/48-49 from the office of Public Information Officer-cum-Additional Collector (Revenue), Dhanbad and the same was forwarded to the office of land acquisition officer. The respondent being dissatisfied preferred an appeal before the appellate forum and thereafter before the State Information Commissioner. The petitioner was directed by the Under Secretary of State Information Commissioner, Ranchi to provide information sought for by the respondent no.4 to the respondent no.4. The Public Information Officer-cum-Additional Collector, Dhanbad tried his level best to provide information to the respondent no.4 but he could not get the relevant record of the LA Case No.6/48-49. On 02.01.2015 the In-charge Chief Information Commissioner took note of its decision dated 19.08.2014 by which the said Public Information Officer-cumAdditional Collector (In-charge Revenue Section) office of Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad was intimated that information sought for by the petitioner is not available in its office hence, the

¶20

W.P. (C) No.3753 of 2016

¶21

¶22

Information Commissioner directed to furnish an affidavit but he submitted a plain paper without the stamp and without signature of the deponent of the affidavit as an excuse to be an affidavit, in compliance of the said order dated 19.08.2014 and considering the conduct of the said Public Information Officer, the respondent no.2 in exercise of its power under Section 19 (8) (b) directed the Public Information Commissioner to pay Rs.30,000/- to the appellant who is the respondent no.4 in this writ petition.

¶23

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner who was at the relevant time the Public Information Officer concerned but now he has been superannuated from the service; did not have the information sought for by the respondent no.4 as informed to him by the clerk of the District Record Room, Dhanbad but in the meanwhile, the same has been received and has been sent to the respondent no.4 on 29.09.2015. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the relevant records are not available in the office of Additional Collector and the Additional Collector has provided the information after obtaining the same from the land acquisition record room. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner joined Dhanbad on the post of LRDC on 12.08.2014 and was transferred from Dhanbad on 22.06.2015 whereas the information was sought under the R.T.I. Act in the year 2011 therefore, the petitioner is not liable to pay ₹ 30,000/-.

¶24

W.P. (C) No.3753 of 2016

¶25

¶26

Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in the writ petition be allowed.

¶27

Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment of the coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. (C) No.3569 of 2012 wherein it has been held by the coordinate Bench that the compensation which has been awarded against the department cannot be assailed by a private individual and the same can only be assailed by the department concerned hence, the challenge to the same by a private individual is not maintainable and the said judgment of the coordinate Bench has been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 17 of 2022 vide its Judgment dated 02.08.2023. It is further submitted that the writ petition has not been filed by the department and the same has been filed by a private individual hence, this writ petition be dismissed being not maintainable.

¶28

Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials in the record, the undisputed facts remains that under Section 19 (8) (b) inter alia the State Information Commissioner has the power inter alia to require public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered. The undisputed fact also remains that though vide order dated 19.08.2014 the Public Information Officer-cum-Additional Collector (In-charge Revenue Section) office of Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad was directed to file an affidavit that the information sought by the respondent no.4 of

¶29

W.P. (C) No.3753 of 2016

¶30

¶31

this writ petition is not available with it but the same has not been filed. Under such circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the order passed by the In-charge Chief Information Commissioner dated 02.01.2015 in Information Appeal Case No.206 of 2012.

¶32

¶33

Moreover, as the petitioner claims that he was not the relevant person who failed to furnish the information and the relevant person was the person who was occupying the relevant post in the year 2011; whereas the petitioner was there only from 2014 to 2015. Further, as the direction for payment of compensation is not

¶34

to the petitioner in person but to Public Information Officer-cumAdditional Collector, Dhanbad and the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the petitioner is no more the Public Information Officer or the Additional Collector as he has been superannuated.

¶35

Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the order dated 02.01.2015 passed in Information Appeal Case No.206 of 2012 by the In-charge Chief Information Commissioner, Ranchi.

¶36

Accordingly, this writ petition being without any merit is dismissed.

¶37

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶38

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 2^nd April, 2024 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-

¶39

W.P. (C) No.3753 of 2016

¶40

Srinarayan Vigyan Prabhakar v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Srinarayan Vigyan Prabhakar v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kuldeep Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manoranjan Kumar Alias Manoranjan Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Yakub Hassa Purti And Ors. Vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Gati Kisto Mahto Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Subhendu Mondal Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary Deptt of Secondary Education