Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. - (1.) Heard the counsel for the parties.
(2.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 24.02.2009 passed in Appeal Case Nos. 1275/08 and 1389/08 passed by the Jharkhand State Information Commission whereby the Commission has been pleased to pass strictures against the petitioner for not supplying certain information and also imposed a fine of Rs. 25,000/- to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner and also recommended to the Home Secretary and Director General of Police, Jharkhand to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioner submits as follows: a. The information sought for relates to Bokaro, Sector IV P.S. Case No. 85/01 dated 13.12.01 which was a case related to Essential Commodities Act corresponding to G.R. No. 1185/01 and the case was pending before the competent authority. b. The information which was sought for vide application dated 8.8.2008 as contained in Annexure-1 related to correspondences which were made during the investigation of the aforesaid Case. c. Within one month from the receipt of the application under right to information, the petitioner vide letter dated 29.08.2008 directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Crime Section of the office asking them to provide para wise compliance. d. However, the petitioner vide letter dated 13.09.2008 was informed by the Crime Section that the said documents were not available as the entire investigation was concluded in the year 2003 itself and that as per the dispatch register dated 6.05.2004 the records are with Commissioner-cum-Secretary Agriculture Sugarcane Development Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi and the information could be obtained by the applicant from the said department. e. In the meantime, on 09.09.08 an appeal was filed by the applicant by way of first appeal under the Right to Information Act f. The petitioner vide letter dated 06.11.08 informed the respondent no 3 that the information sought by him is related to the aforesaid P.S. Case and the information could be obtained from the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Agriculture Sugar Cane Development Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi. Along with this letter the applicant was provided a copy of the memo dated 31.01.03 and for rest of the information the applicant was asked to approached the competent authority for getting the information. g. Vide letter dated 17.12.08 the complete information was duly provided to the applicant however, in the meantime, the applicant had filed second appeal before the State Information Commissioner. h. The Respondent no 3 had filed two appeals in connection with the same application one he had sent by post and the other he had personally filed and the two cases were numbered as Appeal Case Nos. 1275/08 and 1389/08 and both case cases were tagged and disposed of vide the common order which is impugned in this writ petition. i. The petitioner submits that a copy of the letter dated 17.12.2008 was also marked to the under Secretary, Jharkhand State Information commission, Ranchi. The petitioner also submits that vide Annexure-7 dated 27.01.09, the Secretary, Jharkhand, State Information Commission, Ranchi was again intimated the fact that the all the relevant information has already been provided to the applicant. j. When the petitioner again received notice from the Respondent no 2, the petitioner again vide letter dated 14.02.2009 which was duly received in the office of the Respondent no 2 that the petitioner had already supplied the information to the Respondent no 3. k. The counsel for the petitioner by referring the impugned order as contained in Annexure-10 to the writ petition submits that neither the Respondent No.3 nor the petitioner had appeared on 24.02.2009 when the matter was decided. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the applicant after receiving the relevant information stopped appearing before the Information Commissioner as there was no grievance left to be redressed. The petitioner submits that it has been recorded in the order that the matter was heard on 23.12.08, 21.01.09 and 20.02.09 and it has, further, been recorded that the petitioner had neither appeared nor any reply was sent to the Commission in connection with the information which was provided to the applicant. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 24.02.09 is apparently perverse in view of the fact that at least there are three documents i.e. letters dated 18.12.08 ; 27.01.09 and 14.02.09 whereby intimation was given to the Under Secretary, Jharkhand State Information Commission, Ranchi regarding furnishing of the entire information to the Respondent no 3, but, it appears that these documents were not placed before the learned Commission which led to passing of the impugned order. l. The petitioner submits that as the petitioner has taken all possible steps for furnishing information to the applicant and ultimately, the information required by the applicant was duly provided much before the final order dated 24.02.2009 and accordingly the punishments which was imposed against the petitioner is fit to be set-aside.;