2025:JHHC:11495 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 3345 of 2016 Jharkhand Tourism Development Corporation Limited. A Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, Having its office at Mahatma Gandhi Road, Tourist Complex, Ranchi, Post Office-Chutia, Police Station- Doranda & District-Ranchi,845001, through its General Manager Sri Rajiv Ranjan, S/o Shri P.N. Sharma, R/o Kadru, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Argora, District-Ranchi .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Information Commission, through its Secretary, having its office at Engineers’ Hostel, H.E.C. Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi- 834004, District Ranchi (Jharkhand) . 2. Lakhan Kumar, S/o not known, R/o Village-Nawadih, Via-Mackluskiganj, P.O.-Nawadih, P.S.-Nawadih, District Ranchi (Jharkhand) … …. Respondents With W.P. (C) No. 3350 of 2016 Alok Prasad, S/o late Jwala Prasad, Public Information Officer-cum-Deputy General Manager, Jharkhand Tourism Development Corporation having its office at Mahatma Gandhi Road, Tourist Complex, Ranchi, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Chutia, District Ranchi-834001 .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Information Commission, through its Secretary, having its office at Engineers’ Hostel, H.E.C. Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi- 834004, District Ranchi (Jharkhand) . 2. Lakhan Kumar, S/o not known, R/o Village-Nawadih, Via-Mackluskiganj, P.O.-Nawadih, P.S.-Nawadih, District Ranchi (Jharkhand) … …. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioners : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate Mr. Prakhar Harit, Advocate For the Respondent-JSIC : Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, Advocate Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shashank Saurav, AC to GP-III ------ Order No. 13 / Dated : 16.04.2025. Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 1. Both the aforesaid Writ Petitions are directed against the order dated 19.05.2016 passed by the State Information Commission, State of Jharkhand, whereby and whereunder a compensation of Rs 30,000/- to be paid to the Respondent No.2 and direction has been issued for 2025:JHHC:11495 2 initiating departmental proceeding against the petitioner (Alok Prasad) who was posted as Public Information Officer. 2. Petitioner was posted as Deputy General Manager in the Jharkhand Tourism Development Corporation and Public Information Officer and Respondent No.2 (Lakhan Kumar) had filed an application before the petitioner on 13.01.2014 seeking the following information :- (i) The details of the work executed by the department of Tourism at Sarvadharm Asthal at Mackluskiganj was sought and further request was made to enable the respondent No.2 to carry out the inspection of the works carried out in respect thereto. (ii) The further request was made for carrying out inspection of the construction works carried out at Chatti Nadi at Khelari Dam. (iii) Further information was sought regarding the works undertaken by the department of Tourism for the year 2004-05 to 2006-07. 3. The said information was not supplied and consequently, before the State Information Commissioner, an Appeal being Appeal No.2357 of 2014 was filed in which the impugned order has been passed. 4. Vide order dated 07.01.2016, petitioner was directed to furnish the relevant information and if the said information was not furnished, a penalty of Rs.25,000/- was to be imposed and further recommendation was made to conduct departmental proceeding. 5. Argument on behalf of the Petitioner is three fold. Firstly, the Petitioner was appointed as Public Information Officer on 10.04.2015 vide notification no.09/2015 of Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand and on the said date 13.01.2014 when the information was sought he was not serving as a public information officer. Secondly, penalty can be imposed under Section 20(1) of the Act, 2005 on the following conditions:- if the information has not been furnished without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 or mala-fidely denied the request. 6. In present case the Petitioner on 19.11.2015, had sought necessary information from Deputy General Manager, Jharkhand Tourism Development Corporation Ltd and further correspondence were made in this regard from 21.11.2015 and 13.01 2016 to PIO of Department of Tourism Jharkhand, the copy of which is annexed with the writ petition. Its is argued to show that there was no mala-fide on his part and inability to furnish information was not willful. 2025:JHHC:11495 3 7. Learned Counsel on behalf of the Respondent-SIC has defended the impugned order. It is submitted that petitioner failed to forward the said application under Section 6(3) of the R.T.I. Act to the concerned public authority nor did he reply to the Respondent No.2 that the information did not concern with the JTDC. It is further argued that the fact that the petitioner was not notified as public information officer, is a plea which has been taken for the first time before this Court. 8. Having heard both the sides, what emerges is that the facts are not much in dispute that information was sought on 13.01.2014 whereas on that date Petitioner was not even appointed as public information officer. Further, the copy of correspondences filed on behalf of the Petitioner, goes to show that the Petitioner did not act mala-fide and had made correspondences, so that necessary information could be furnished. 9. Condition requisite for imposing penalty is no longer res integra. The coordinate Bench of this Court inTarni Prasad Mukhia v. Jharkhand State Information Commission through its Secretary and Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine Jhar 1132 held, 18. Section 20 of the Act, 2005 is to be treated as a harsh provision and as such before imposing penalty or recommending for initiation of departmental proceeding, an opinion has to be formed by the Commission that the Public Information Officer has not furnished the information within the time specified without any reasonable cause. 10. In view of the above stated position of fact and law, this Court is of the view that Petitioner has demonstrated sufficient cause which prevented him from furnishing requisite information. Under the circumstance, impugned order is set aside. Writ Petitions are allowed. Pending I.A(s), if any, stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sandeep/ -