MATLU ALLAM Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder order dated 16.03.2017 as contained in Memo No.1681 passed by the Chief Information Commissioner, Jharkhand is under challenge, by which, the appeal has been disposed of on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction as also on merit.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that he has made an application for getting information on 28.11.2015 before the Deputy Director, In-charge-cum-Public Information Officer, Khadi Gram Udyog, Ranchi as contained under Annexure-1, when no information was furnished he had made an application by approaching the first appellate authority i.e. Director-cum- First Appellate Authority Gram Udyog Commission, Calcutta and when no order has been passed by the first appellate authority he has invoked the jurisdiction of the second appellate authority by making application before the under Secretary to the Jharkhand State Information Commissioner, Ranchi on 10.02.2016 as would be evident from Annexure-3, upon which, the Chief Information Commissioner has passed the order on 19.12.2016 by directing the Public Information Officer to provide information, failing which the Commissioner will consider for imposing penalty in view of the provision of Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, but subsequent order has been passed by the Chief Information Officer on 16.03.2017 holding therein that the second appeal is not maintainable on the ground that the information has been sought for which pertains to the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, Government of India whose eastern office is situated at Kolkata and therefore, the Jharkhand State Information Commission has got no jurisdiction to hear the said appeal.

(3.) The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that when the Chief Information Commission has passed order on 19.12.2016 he cannot turn around and take another view by passing the impugned order on 16.03.2017, therefore, the said order is not sustainable in the eye of law.