Jharkhand High Court
State Of Jharkhand vs Urga Narayan Jaiswal on 24 September, 2021
Author: Kailash Prasad Deo
Bench: Kailash Prasad Deo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
W.P.(C) No. 6365 of 2012
........
State of Jharkhand, through Deputy Commissioner, Godda.
.... ..... Petitioner Versus Urga Narayan Jaiswal .... ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO (Through : Video Conferencing) ............
For the Petitioner-State : Mr. Sreenu Garapati, S.C.-III.
For the Respondent :
........
09/24.09.2021.
Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner-State, Mr. Sreenu Garapati, S.C.-III.
Pursuant to the orders dated 01.09.2021 and 13.09.2021, State through Deputy Commissioner, Godda has filed I.A. No. 5355/2021 for substituting the legal heirs of sole respondent, who died on 15.11.2018, by one of his son namely, Akshay Jaiswal, S/o Urga Narayan Jaiswal, R/o- Hatiya Chowk, Rajendra Nagar, P.O. P.S. & District- Godda, Jharkhand.
It has been further submitted in the I.A. No. 5355/2021 filed by the petitioner-State through Deputy Commissioner, Godda namely, Manoj Kumar, S/o Late Chaturgun Ram, Executive Magistrate, Godda at paragraph-7 that the deceased respondent has two sons, but the details of only one son was revealed and mentioned. The details of the second son of the deceased has not been given nor name, as second son is staying somewhere outside.
This Court is of the opinion that the aforesaid submission of the Deputy Commissioner, Godda through the Executive Magistrate, Godda is not acceptable to this Court for the reason that family history are maintained in the Circle Office of that Circle in the district. The State must ascertain the complete details of all the legal heirs before filing such interlocutory application in a writ of year 2012. This shows that Circle Officer is also not working and the authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Godda has no control over the Circles and the Executive Magistrate, who files such petitions.
-2-Accordingly, I.A. No. 5355/2021 is hereby rejected with a direction to the petitioner-State to file fresh interlocutory application alongwith complete details of all the legal heirs for substitution of the deceased- respondent through the Deputy Commissioner, Godda- writ petitioner.
This Court has also heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-State on merits.
Learned counsel for the petitioner-State, Mr. Sreenu Garapati has submitted that cost of Rs.5,000/- has been imposed by the Chief Information Commissioner, Ranchi on the ground that money has been retained for long nine years and the same was returned without interest, which is not envisaged under Section 19(8) (b) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, as such, the order dated 03.07.2012 passed by Chief Information Commissioner is not sustainable.
Considering such submissions and on perusal of Article 227 of Constitution of India, this Court asked the learned counsel for the petitioner-state whether this part of the order can be rectified by the this court by imposing cost of Rs.5,000/- under Section 19(8) (b) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 for non-furnishing the information sought on 16.11.2011 till 15.03.2012. Non-providing information within prescribed time by the public authority is required to be compensated to the complainant for any loss or other detrimental suffered by the complainant.
This court has further directed the counsel for the petitioner- state to verify that the interest accrued upon the said amount withheld for nine years can be compensated in view of 'THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST ACT, 1978' and in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi and others vs. Union of Indian and another, reported in 2009(7) SCC
372. Para-38 of the aforesaid judgment may profitably be quoted hereunder:-
"38. As we have indicated earlier, payment of interest is basically compensation for being denied the use of the money during the period in which the same could have been made available to the claimants. In our view, both the Tribunal, as also the High Court, -3- were wrong in not granting any interest whatsoever to the ppellants, except by way of a default clause, which is contrary to the established principles relating to payment of interest on money claims."
Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to file fresh substitution petition duly sworn by the Deputy Commissioner, Godda, who is petitioner before this Court and not by the Executive Magistrate, by incorporating all the legal heirs of respondent, so that this Court can pass necessary order with regard to Section 19(8) (b) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and also with regard to the payment of Interest Act, 1978 on the next date.
Learned counsel for the petitioner-State has submitted that matter may be listed after Durga Puja Vacation.
Put up this case on 26.10.2021.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Jay/-