STATE OF JHARKHAND Vs. CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed setting aside the order dated 25.03.2015 (Annexure-15) passed by the Acting Chief Information Commissioner, Jharkhand in Appeal No. 955 of 2013, whereby the office of the petitioner has been directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 20,000.00 to the respondent no.2 since no information on certain point was furnished to him.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, as stated in the writ petition, is that the respondent no.2 had sought some information with respect to Satya Kinkar Sahana Trust, relating to Khata No.1185, Plot Nos.7678, 7679, 7680, 7681, 7682 of Tilaiya Mouza. Pursuant thereto, the Deputy Collector, the In-charge, General Section, Koderma vide letter no.376 dated 23.05.2013 directed the petitioner to provide required information to the respondent no. The Chainman, Circle Office Koderma showed his inability to furnish information, since the documents pertained to the year 198 The petitioner brought the said fact to the notice of the Deputy Collector, In-charge General Section, Koderma. The respondent no.2 filed first appeal on 27.06.2013 alleging that the information provided to him is incomplete and unsatisfactory. The Additional Collector, Koderma-cum-First Appellate Authority sent a letter to the petitioner, stating therein that the respondent no.2 was not satisfied with the information furnished to him. Thereafter, the petitioner vide letter no.551 dated 23.07.2013 sent a report to the Additional Collector, Koderma with regard to the matter and thereafter, the 1st appeal preferred by the respondent no.2 was disposed of. The respondent no.2 then filed 2nd appeal before the State Information Commission, Jharkhand being Appeal No.955 of 2013 whereupon a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner vide letter no.177 dated 15.03.2014 submitted his reply to the show cause notice, stating that the information regarding Khata No.1185 of Satya Kinkar Sahana Trust could not be retrieved, since the documents are too old. The petitioner further stated that he took all viable efforts to retrieve the said documents but failed. The petitioner also affirmed an affidavit before the Notary Public, Koderma on 17.09.2014, stating that the information sought by Mr. Moinuddin Warsi (respondent no.2), pertaining to Satya Kinkar Sahana Trust's Khata No.1185 and its Jamabandi and Mutation Case No.269 of 1982 is too old and after expiry of 32 years it is not possible to produce the said documents. The Acting Chief Information Commissioner, Jharkhand vide order dated 25.03.2015, however, observed that it is the duty of the concerned Officers and the Staff to keep the records in safe custody and if the records are not available or misplaced from the office, the person concerned must be punished. The Acting Chief Information Commissioner held that since no information was given to the appellant (respondent no.2 herein), he must be compensated under section 19(8)(b) of the Right To Information Act, 2005 and thus ordered the office of the petitioner to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000.00 to the respondent no.2, which gives rise to filing of the present writ petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the information sought by the respondent no.2 was too old and the same could not be retrieved in spite of the best efforts of the petitioner and his subordinate staff and as such the petitioner should not have been penalized for no fault on his part. It is further submitted that the circular issued under the Act, 2005 clearly suggests that any documents should be secured for a period of twelve years for any correction of names in Khasra and Khatian and as such the petitioner was duty bound to secure the records only for a period 12 years. Since the information sought by the respondent no.2 was about 32 years old, the petitioner had no legal obligation to provide the same. It is further submitted that the responsibility of keeping any document is upon the person in-charge of the office and not upon the petitioner. It is also submitted that the show cause notice served to the petitioner was duly replied by the petitioner disclosing the true fact, however, the same was not appreciated by the respondent no.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner puts reliance on the judgment rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education and Another Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Others reported in (2011) 8 SCC 497.