RANCHI, India, Aug. 8 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on July 9:

1. The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 26.03.2010 passed by the Information Commissioner in Appeal No. 1495 of 2009 by which a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- and compensation of Rs. 80,000/- have been imposed.

2. As per the impugned order, an information was sought for by Pawan Kumar Mahto on 21.07.2009. The following information were sought for as under:

Information can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=oo%2BtRJJeFk03ErxBsOJjIAp9zP5%2Bdlcdr1TOJKZGC2TIGWGcwO7XNOxYBP8tH0aO&caseno=WPC/3589/2010&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010245782010&state_code=7&appFlag=)

3. The said information was not furnished and consequently, the applicant moved the State Information Commission by which the impugned order has been passed. The requisite information was furnished vide vide Letter No. 654, Mahagama on 10.12.2009 by the office of Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Godda (Annexure-6 Series). Being not satisfied with the said information, the applicant (respondent no. 2) moved the State Information Commissioner by which the impugned order has been passed.

4. It is argued by learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that this is a case which shows a flagrant misuse of the beneficial provision of R.T.I. Act, 2005. As a matter of fact, the petitioner and his father had encroached over govt land regarding which BPLE Case No. 02/2008 was initiated and order to remove encroachment was made.

5. Against the said order, respondent no. 2 moved this Court in W.P. (C) No. 4245 of 2008 and W.P. (C) No. 5594 of 2015 which were dismissed. Subsequent thereto, the information was sought for and furnished. The respondent no. 2 did not stop there, he again sought for almost identical information on 20.01.2011. The information was furnished, but being not satisfied with the said information, appeal was preferred before the State Information Commissioner in which the penalty was imposed. One Naresh Prasad Mandal, the then Executive Engineer, who was the Public Information Officer, preferred W.P. (C) No. 1253 of 2016 in which the matter was dealt with at length and the impugned order was set aside.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that facts of the present case are squarely covered with the judgment already rendered by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 1253 of 2016.

7. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the State Information Commission that the point, that is being raised at this stage, was not raised before the State Information Commission and furthermore, order of compensation cannot be challenged by the Public Information Officer since that compensation has to be paid by the department concerned. The penalty is liable to be imposed, if necessary information is not furnished within the statutory period of 30 days.

8. This is yet another case which demonstrates how beneficial provision of law can be misused to harass a public servant. An order of eviction from public land is passed against Respondent No.2 in a proceeding under Public Land Encroachment Act. The said order attains finality and dismissal of writ petition filed against the said order.

9. Respondent No.2 seeks a long list of information which is also furnished. Almost identical information is sought for in another R.T.I. application. On both occasions, the information is furnished. Surprisingly enough, learned Information Commissioner finds the same to be adequate. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has already decided the analogues matter setting aside the impugned order. The order impugned in the present case is on similar footing which is, accordingly, set aside.

Writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.

Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.