2025:JHHC:13413-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 629 of 2024 --- Hari Nandan Singh, son of Late Budhan Singh, resident of Quarter No. 2363, Sector-4/D, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro … … Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Information Commissioner, having its office at Dhurwa, Ranchi 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro 4. The Deputy Commissioner (LR), Chas, Bokaro 5. Pawan Kumar, son of Late Bechu Sharma, resident of “Milan” Shreya Enclave Road, Bariatu, Ranchi [presently posted as Executive Magistrate, Sadar, Ranchi] …. … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --- For the Appellant : In person For the Resp. Nos. 1, 3 & 4 : Mr. Gaurav Raj, A.C. to A.A.G.-II For the Resp. No. 2 : Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate For the Resp. No. 5 : Mr. Pratyush Shounikya, Advocate --- Reserved on 23.04.2025 Pronounced on 05.05.2025 Per : Rajesh Shankar, J. : The present appeal is directed against the order dated 25.10.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No. 1370 of 2022 whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent no. 5 by quashing the order dated 30.07.2019 passed by the Information Commissioner, Jharkhand State Information Commission, Ranchi in Appeal Case No. 2665 of 2015. 2. The appellant has appeared before this court in person and has submitted that he had filed application dated 31.03.2015 to the then Public Information Officer-cum-Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Chas, Bokaro (the respondent no. 5 herein) demanding certain information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short, “the Act, 2005”). It is further submitted that though the photo copy of the desired 2025:JHHC:13413-DB 2 information was supplied to him vide letter no. 373 dated 23.04.2015, however the certified copy of the same was not supplied. 3. According to the appellant, he thereafter filed First Appeal on 28.04.2015 before the Additional Collector-cum-First Appellate Authority, Bokaro but at that stage also, the certified copy of the desired information was not supplied to him. Subsequently, the appellant filed second appeal on 20.05.2015 vide Appeal Case No. 2665 of 2015 which was decided by the Information Commissioner, Jharkhand State Information Commission, Ranchi vide order dated 30.07.2019 imposing penalty of Rs. 25,000/- upon the respondent no. 5 under section 20(1) of the Act, 2005 with a direction to him to deposit the said amount in five equal installments @ Rs.5,000/- per month from his salary in District Treasury. Further order was passed under section 19(8)(b) of the Act, 2005 directing payment of compensation amounting to Rs.50,000/- to the appellant by the office of the Public Information Officer. 4. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent no. 5 preferred writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1370 of 2022 which was allowed vide order dated 25.10.2024 quashing the order dated 30.07.2019 passed by the Information Commissioner in Appeal Case No. 2665 of 2015. 5. It has also been submitted by the appellant that though he had demanded certified copy of the required documents as per the provision of section 2(j) of the Act, 2005, however the respondent no. 5 had failed to provide the same and thus the Information Commissioner vide order dated 30.07.2019 had rightly imposed penalty under section 20(1) of the Act, 2005 and compensation 2025:JHHC:13413-DB 3 under section 19(8)(b) of the Act, 2005. The learned Single Judge has therefore committed an error in setting aside the said order of the Information Commissioner. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 5 has submitted that the desired information was already furnished to the appellant within time and as such the learned Single Judge rightly quashed the order passed by the Information Commissioner. Moreover, no opportunity of hearing was given to the Public Information Officer before passing the order dated 30.07.2019 by the Information Commissioner. Otherwise also, the certified copy of the desired information could not have been provided to the appellant taking into consideration rule 89 of the Bihar Records Manual, 1960. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 8. We have gone through the order dated 25.10.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No. 1370 of 2022 wherein the learned Single judge has observed that the Public Information Officer provided the information required by the appellant annexing the original letter of communication along with the photocopy of the original record and thus even though the documents supplied to the appellant did not contain seal, it should be deemed to be considered as certified copy sent by the Public Information Officer to the appellant. The learned Single while interpreting Section 2(j) of the Act, 2005 has held that once the photocopies of the required documents were annexed with the original letter of the authority, though the attached documents were not signed/sealed, those would be deemed to be certified 2025:JHHC:13413-DB 4 being part and parcel of the original letter issued to the applicant. 9. In the case of Manohar S/o Manikrao Anchule Vs. State of Maharashtra & Another reported in (2012) 13 SCC 14, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the State Information Commission has been vested with wide powers including imposition of penalty or taking of disciplinary action against the employees and exercise of such power is bound to adversely affect or bring civil consequences to the delinquent and thus the provisions relating to penalty or to penal consequences have to be construed strictly and the same are not to be given liberal construction. 10. Thus, any action under Section 20 of the Act, 2005 should not be taken in a routine manner as the same involves civil as well as penal consequences. Moreover, imposition of penalty under Section 20(1) of the Act, 2005 is directory in nature and not mandatory and as such, the same should not be passed in a mechanical manner, rather it should be passed after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of a particular case. 11. In the case of Chief Information Commissioner and Another Vs. State of Manipur and Another reported in (2011) 15 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, while entertaining a complaint filed under Section 18 of the Act, 2005 is that of penalty provided under Section 20 of the said Act. However, before such order is passed, the Information Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bonafide. 2025:JHHC:13413-DB 5 12. In the present case, the respondent no. 5 was under bonafide belief that the certified copy of the desired information could not have been provided to the appellant taking into consideration Rule 89 of the Bihar Records Manual, 1960. It is not in dispute that the desired information was supplied by the respondent no. 5 to the appellant within time. The only grievance of the appellant is that the certified copy of the desired information was not supplied to him. The appellant has also not claimed before this Court that the Public Information Officer had knowingly furnished incorrect, incomplete, misleading or destroyed information. 13. Be that as it may. We are of the view that the appellant should feel satisfied in view of the aforesaid observation made by the learned Single Judge as he can use the supplied document as certified copy. 14. The present appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. (M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) N.A.F.R. Ritesh/