Rajesh Singh Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

¶1

2026:JHHC:7614

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

¶3

----

¶4

W.P.(C) No.3066 of 2011

¶5

----

¶6

Rajesh Singh, S/o Late Mahesh Singh, resident of Village Dandar Kala, PO and PS Panki, District Palamau at present working as Principal Mazdoor Kisan Inter College, Dandar Kala, Palamau-cumPublic Information Officer, Mazdoor Kisan Inter College, Panki, Palamau …. Petitioner

¶7

-- Versus --

¶8

1 .Jharkhand State Information Commissioner, through Secretary, Jharkhand Information Commission, Engineering Hostel No.2, Gol Chakkar, PO and PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi 2 .Jai Mangal Singh, son of late Anati Dubey, resident of C/o New Course Coaching Centre, PO and PS Panki District Palamau 3 .Yogeshwar Singh, son of Sri Maheshwar Singh, resident of C/o Sri Ashok Gupta, Manjholi, PO and PS Panki, District Palamau …. Opp. Parties

¶9

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶11

¶12

For the Petitioner(s) :- Mr. Akhouri Prakhar Sinha, Advocate For the J.S.I.Comm. :- Mr. Sanjoy Piprawal, Advocate Mr. Jay Prakash, Advocate For the Resp.Nos.2&3 :- Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate ----

¶13

19 /19.03.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,

¶14

Mr. Sanjoy Piprawal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Jharkhand State Information Commission and Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶15

-1- W.P.(C) No.3066 of 2011

¶16

This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 17.02.2011 passed in Appeal Case No.920 of 2010 by learned State Information Commissioner whereby he has been pleased to direct to deduct and realize Rs.20,000/- from the salary of the petitioner under section 20(1) of Right to Information Act and he has been further called upon to pay Rs.20,000/- to the respondent nos.2 and 3 under Section 19-8(b) of the Right to Information Act.

¶17

Leaned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent nos.2 and 3 have filed a petition under the Right to Information Act for certain information and the documents available with the College of which the petitioner was the Principal and has already been provided the document which was available to respondent nos.2 and 3, however, part of the documents which has been seized by the Jharkhand Legislative Assembly has not been supplied as the said documents were not with the petitioner who happened to be the Principal of Mazdoor Kisan Inter College. He further submits that the learned Information Commission in spite of that, has been pleased to impose the fine of Rs.20,000/- upon the petitioner under section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act and the Department has been further saddled with Rs.20,000/- as compensation under section 19-8(b) of Right to Information Act. He next submits that although the petitioner was present on 20.12.2010 and in spite of that, in the impugned order it is said that the petitioner was not present on that day. By way of referring the -2- W.P.(C) No.3066 of 2011

¶18

Annexure-6 he submits that the petitioner was present in the office and on that day, he has filed a petition which has been received in the office of the State Information Commission. The Department has not challenged the order of compensation and the petitioner is aggrieved with the penalty imposed upon him.

¶19

Mr. Sanjoy Piprawal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Jharkhand State Information Commission submits that the order has been rightly passed and there is no illegality in the said order and the petitioner has not supplied the document and as such, no interference may be made in the writ petition.

¶20

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.2 and 3 have adopted the argument of Mr. Piprawal, the learned counsel.

¶21

In the impugned order, it has come that the petitioner was not present on 20.12.2010 during the course of hearing, wherein the Annexure-6 is the document which has been filed in the said office and that has been received and the receiving is also there of 20.12.2010 and in that document, it has been disclosed that part of the document has been seized by the Jharkhand State Legislative Assembly and that was requested to be considered.

¶22

On the other hand, in the impugned order, it has been stated that the petitioner was not present on 20.12.2010 which appears to be contradictory.

¶23

The adjudicatory process has to be in consonance with

¶24

the principles of natural justice including the doctrine of audi -3- W.P.(C) No.3066 of 2011

¶25

alterem partem i.e. hearing the parties, application of mind and recording of reasons; these are the basic principles of natural justice, and by violating these principles, no order can be passed. The receiving of the application on 20.12.2010 in the office of the State Information Commission clearly suggest that the petitioner was present in the office, however, in the impugned order, it was recorded that the petitioner was not present on 20.12.2010, and in that view of the matter, the order 17.02.2011 passed in Appeal Case No.920 of 2010 is, hereby, quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Jharkhand State Information Commission to pass a fresh order after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties.

¶26

It has been pointed out by Mr. Piprawal, the learned counsel appearing for the Jharkhand State Information Commission that the said Commission is not functional at present as the Commissioner is not appointed.

¶27

When the said office will resume, it is open to the Commissioner, Jharkhand State Information Commission to call upon the parties, if so desire, to appear and present their case.

¶28

With above observation and direction, W.P.(C) No.3066 of 2011 is disposed of.

¶29

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶30

Dated : 19^th March, 2026 SI/

¶31

-4- W.P.(C) No.3066 of 2011

Rajesh Singh v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Singh v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deen Dayal Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sunil Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand

Sanjay Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Raunak Choudhary @ Janu @ Rounit Kumar @ Raunit Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand

Ayush Ranjan Alias Ayush Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kisun Sao Alias Kishun Sao Vs the State of Jharkhand