Jharkhand High Court
Hari Nandan Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 May, 2018
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 7295 of 2017
Hari Nandan Singh, son of Late Budhan Singh, resident of Qr. No.
2363, Sector 4/D, Bokaro Steel City, P.O.-Bokaro Steel City, P.S.-Sector-
4, Bokaro Steel City, District-Bokaro, Jharkhand... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Jharkhand State Information Commission through its Secretary,
Ranchi
3. The Public Information Officer-cum-Superintendent of Police,
Bokaro, P.O. & P.S.-Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Hari Nandan Singh, In-person For the Respondents : None
-----
Order No. 04 Dated: 04.05.2018 Heard the petitioner who appeared in-person, whereas no one appears on behalf of the respondents.
2. Despite the order dated 20.02.2018, no counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents.
3. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 21.08.2017 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) passed by the Chief Information Commissioner, Jharkhand State Information Commission in Appeal No. 26 of 2015, whereby the petitioner has been debarred from appearing in-person in future before the Jharkhand State Information Commission.
4. The brief facts of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the petitioner had filed an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 2005") on 30.08.2014 before the respondent no. 3 - the Public Information Officer-cum- Superintendent of Police, Bokaro. When the petitioner could not get the information within the statutory period of 30 days from the date of application, he filed first appeal before the Appellate Authority on 16.10.2014. Though the petitioner sought altogether four information, however, after the direction of the first appellate authority-cum- Deputy Inspector General, Coalfield Zone Area, Bokaro, the respondent no. 3 furnished only one information. Thereafter, the 2 petitioner filed second appeal being Appeal No. 26 of 2015 before the respondent no. 2 - the Jharkhand State Information Commission on 12.01.2015. The appeal was taken up for hearing by the respondent no. 2 on 30.03.2015. The respondent no. 3 appeared before the respondent no. 2 and informed that rest of the information has been sent to the petitioner by post and a copy of the same was produced before the respondent no. 2. The respondent no. 2 vide order dated 30.03.2015, directed the petitioner to file objection before the respondent no. 3 if he did not feel satisfied and the respondent no. 3 was directed to dispose of the said objection. The petitioner thereafter filed an objection before the respondent no. 3, however, in spite of the order dated 30.03.2015, the respondent no. 3 did not decide the same which compelled the petitioner to file another application before the respondent no. 2 on which a show-cause notice was issued under Section 19(8)(b) and 20(1) of the Act, 2005 to the respondent no. 3. However, in course of hearing, the respondent no. 2 passed the impugned order dated 21.08.2017 debarring the petitioner from appearing before it in future.
5. The petitioner in-person submits that though he has received the required information, yet the same was provided to him after seven months from the date of application made under the Act, 2005. The Act, 2005 mandates for supply of information within the time prescribed, failing which the Public Information Officer would be liable for providing compensation to be paid to the complainant under Section 19(8)(b) and imposition of penalty under Section 20 of the Act, 2005. The petitioner intended to seek adjudication on the point of compensation and penalty upon the respondent no. 3 for not furnishing the information within time, however, the respondent no. 2 on making personal allegation against the petitioner debarred him from appearing in-person in future before the respondent no. 2 which is illegal and arbitrary.
6. The counsel for the State has abstained from the court work on account of abstainment of court work on certain issues called by the Advocates' Association of High Court of Jharkhand.
37. Heard the petitioner in-person.
8. Right to information is more or less a universal concept which flows directly from the guarantee of freedom of speech and expression under Art 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, yet it required fair and efficient procedures to ensure the right to information which gave rise to several movements in the country. The first and most well-known right to information movement in India was by the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS), an organization of peasants and rural workers in Rajasthan during the early 1990's. MKSS's struggle for the access to village accounts i.e., an account for development expenditure in Panchayati Raj institutions (local self-government) and transparency in administration was widely acknowledged which sparked off the right to information movement in India. Thus, to fulfil the requirement of democracy, the parliament of India enacted the Right to Information Act, 2005 which came into force w.e.f. 12.10.2005.
9. Section 6 of the Act, 2005 deals with the request for obtaining information, which is quoted as under:
"6. Request for obtaining information - (1) A person, who desires to obtain any information under this Act, shall make a request in writing or through electronic means in English or Hindi in the official language of the area in which the application is being made, accompanying such fee as may be prescribed, to -
(a) the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, of the concerned public authority;
(b) the Central Assistant Public Information Officer or State Assistant Public Information Officer, as the case may be, Specifying the particulars of the information sought by him or her:
Provided that where such request cannot be made in writing, the Central Public Information officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall render all reasonable assistance to the person making the request orally to reduce the same in writing."
10. The provision of Section 6(1) specifically provides that the Public Information Officer has to render all possible assistance to the 4 information seeker. The intention of legislature is quite clear in this regard. Though in Section 6, the word "Central Public Information Officer" or the "State Public Information Officer" has been used, however, the same is applicable to the appellate authorities also as it is a settled law that an appeal is the continuation of the original proceeding. Thus, the State Information Commission being the second appellate authority is under statutory obligation to provide all reasonable assistance to the information seeker. Even a lay man or an illiterate person may seek information as he has the constitutional right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India as well as the statutory right under the Act, 2005 and if a person who seeks information under the Act, 2005 is debarred from appearing in-person before the statutory authorities, the same will defeat the very purpose of the legislation.
11. The Government of Jharkhand, in exercise of power conferred under Section 27(2)(d)(e) of the Act, 2005 has framed the Jharkhand State Information Commission Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules, 2005") which has been published in the official gazette vide notification dated 27.02.2005. Rules 6(3) and 7 of the Rules, 2005 are quoted as under:
6. Appeal under sub-section (1) of Section 19:-
(1) The Public Authority shall by notification specify the designation of the officer to whom the appeals under sub-section (1) of Section 19, shall lie.
(2) Every such appeal shall be accompanied by a copy of the order, if any, appealed against, and it shall specify:-
(i) the name and address of the applicant
and the particulars regarding the State
Public Information Officer appealed
against.
(ii) the date of receipt of order, if any, from
the State Public Information Officer
appealed against:
(iii) the grounds of appeal; and
(iv) the relief which the applicant claims.
(3) the Appellate Authority under sub-section (1) of Section 19 shall fix a day for hearing of the appeal. On the date fixed for hearing the appeal or on further date to which, the appeal 5 may be adjourned, the Appellate Authority shall after hearing the parties pass such orders of the appeal as it deems fit.
(7) Procedure in Appeals under sub-section (3) of Section 19:- The provisions of rule 6 shall mutatis-mutandis apply to an appeal preferred under-section 19(3).
12. Rule 6(3) of the Rule 2005 specifically provides that the appellate authority after hearing the parties shall pass such orders on appeal as it deems fit. Here also, the phrase "hearing the parties" has been used which has further been emphasized by using the word "shall". The phrase "shall after hearing the parties" sufficiently indicates that appellate authority must hear the party and if the information seeker does not want to appoint his representative, he cannot be forced by the appellate authority for doing so. Similarly, the Central Government has also framed the Right to Information Rules, 2012. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 12 reads as under:
"(2) The appellant may be present in person or through his duly authorized representative or through video conferencing, if the facility of video conferencing is available, at the time of hearing of the appeal by the Commission."
13. Thus, it is clear from the above provisions that the appellant may appear in-person before the appellate authority and he/she cannot be debarred. It is true that the petitioner who appeared before the respondent no. 2 in-person should have maintained the decorum in the proceeding, yet the respondent no. 2 should not have passed such a harsh order of debarring the petitioner from appearing before it in future, which is otherwise unlawful.
14. Thus, on the basis of the discussion made hereinabove, this Court is of the view that the information seeker cannot be debarred from appearing in-person before the authorities prescribed under the Act, 2005. The Public Information Officer as well as the appellate authorities including the State Information Commission are duty bound to provide reasonable assistance to the information seeker in getting the desired information under the Act, 2005.
15. The respondent no. 2 in its impugned order has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Civil 6 Appeal No. 6454 of 2011 (Central Board of Secondary Education Vs. Aditya Bandopadhaya & Ors.) which is not applicable in the fact situation of the present case. It may also be noted that the petitioner had been requesting the Commission to adjudicate upon the question of providing compensation and imposition of penalty upon the Public Information Officer for furnishing the information belatedly as the petitioner has claimed that he was provided information after seven months, whereas the same ought to have been provided within 30 days as per the Act, 2005.
16. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 21.08.2017 passed by the respondent no. 2 in Appeal No. 26 of 2015 is set-aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent no. 2 for passing a fresh order on the point of providing compensation and imposition of penalty upon the respondent no. 3 under the Act, 2005 after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties including the petitioner, if he likes to appear in-person.
17. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.) Manish/A.F.R.