HARSH MANGLA Vs. JHARKHAND STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties.

(2.) The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the order dtd. 22/7/2011, passed in Appeal Case No. 2020 of 2010, passed by learned Information Commissioner, whereby a sum of Rs.25,000.00 has been imposed upon the petitioner as penalty for not providing the required information to respondent No. 3 and further direction was given to pay compensation of Rs.50,000.00 to the respondent No. 3.

(3.) As per the facts of the case, a notice bearing No. 4425 dtd. 9/4/2011 issued by respondent No. 1 was received by the petitioner's office on 30/4/2011, by which the Sub-divisional Officer, Godda (petitioner herein) was directed to appear on 27/4/2011 before the respondent No. 1 in Appeal preferred by respondent No. 3, however, the petitioner could not appear before the respondent No. 1 as he had not received the said notice on time. Petitioner immediately after receiving the said notice, verified from his official records and found that the respondent No. 3, Karan Hansda never submitted any application seeking information under RTI Act, 2005. Further, the petitioner was surprised to know that even no appeal was preferred before the Additional Collector who is the first appellate authority. However, it was later on found that initially the Appeal No. 2020 of 2010 was preferred against the Assistant Public Information Officer, Office of Deputy Commissioner, Godda. Meanwhile, another notice dtd. 10/6/2011 was served upon the petitioner on 20/6/2011. Thereafter, on 25/6/2011 the petitioner sent letter to respondent No.l annexing the information sought by the respondent No. 3 which he had received from the District Mining Officer, Godda. The petitioner further stated that he was the Public Information Officer in Appeal No. 2020 of 2010. In the said letter, petitioner has also stated that the respondent No. 3 has filed two appeals before the respondent No. 1 for the same cause of action. It was also brought to the notice of the respondent No. 1 that he was not the PIO in Appeal No. 2020 of 2010 and also the fact that the respondent No. 3 had also preferred another appeal i.e. Appeal No. 2523 of 2010, which is still pending.