IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4112 of 2018 ====================================================== Raghavendra Mani Tripathi Son of Late Markandey Mani Tripathi Resident of Barnai Khas Baitalpur, Bhatpar Rani, District - Devaria Uttar Pradesh. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The State Information Commissioner, State Information Commission, 4th Floor, Information Building, 3. The Secretary, State Information Commission, Patna. 4. The District Magistrate, Gopalganj. 5. The District Education Officer, Gopalganj. 6. The District Programme Officer, Sarv Siksha Abhiyan, Elementary Education, Gopalganj. 7. The District Treasury Officer, Gopalganj. 8. Ajay Kumar Chaurasia Father's name not known Resident of Bunglow No. 85, Anand Bazar, Circular Road, Near Shiva Mandir, Danapur Cant, Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Apurva Kumar (AC to GA-12) For the State Information : Mrs. Binita Singh, Advocate Commission ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 21-03-2025 Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Learned Counsel for the State and Learned Counsel for State Information Commission, Patna. 2. The present writ petition has been filed in the nature of writ of certiorari for quashing of the Memo No.8064 dated 04.12.2017 (annexed as Annexure-13) by which the State Information Commissioner, Patna has imposed Rs.10,000/- cost Patna High Court CWJC No.4112 of 2018 dt.21-03-2025 2/11 to the petitioner and the copy of the same has been forwarded to the District Magistrate, District Education Officer as well as the Treasury Officer, Gopalganj for compliance of the same without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. Further prayer has been made for quashing of the Memo No.223 dated 20.12.2017 (annexed as Annexure-14) by which the District Magistrate, Gopalganj has issued the same addressing to the District Education Officer, Gopalganj for depositing the penal cost, as the Secretary, State Information Commission, Bihar, Patna vide Memo No.1180 dated 12.12.2017. And further for quashing of the Memo No.02/Gopalganj dated 02.01.2018 (annexed as Annexure-15) by which the District Programme Officer, Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan, Elementary Education, Gopalganj has issued the same addressing to the District Education Officer, Gopalganj giving the reference of the State Information Commission, Bihar, Patna Memo No.8064 dated 04.12.2017 by which, direction for recovery of Rs.10,000/- has been made in installment. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was the then District Programme Officer, Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan, Elementary Education, Gopalganj for a very short period of time, at present, District Programme Officer, Patna High Court CWJC No.4112 of 2018 dt.21-03-2025 3/11 Mid-day meal Scheme, Gopalganj. Petitioner was discharging his duty with best of his capacity and to the full satisfaction of the authority concerned without any complain or adverse remarks. Counsel submits that one Ajay Kumar Chaurasia (Respondent no.8) has sought an information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 from the D.P.O., Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan, Elementary Education, Gopalganj with regard to the private schools which are tagged for recognition under CBSE/ICSE in the district of Gopalganj for the sessions 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 with the details of total schools, its telephone no., mobile no. along with its name of Sansthapak, Director, Principal as well as total seat admitted students 25% under Right to Education Act, and details have also been sought for. Counsel further submits that the State Information Commission, Patna has issued Letter No.11906 dated 08.03.2016 (annexed as Annexure-2) in case No.108210/13-14 and has passed the order on 11.02.2016 under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The appellant has filed an appeal for providing the information. Counsel submits that the information has already been provided to the private Respondent no.8, but even then, he has preferred appeal with allegation that no information has been provided to him. Counsel further submits that the said Patna High Court CWJC No.4112 of 2018 dt.21-03-2025 4/11 information has been provided to him vide Annexure-3 and subsequently vide Annexure-5. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner joined on the relevant post on 11.07.2017, whereas, the case before the Appellate Authority was going on before his joining in which in a routine manner, he has appeared on 04.08.2017 and the State Information Commissioner has pleased to pass the order. Counsel submits that in compliance of the said order passed by the State Information Commissioner dated 04.08.2017, he has taken several steps and issued letter contained in Memo No.1414/Gopalganj dated 05.10.2017 (annexed as Annexure-11) and provided information to the private Respondent no.8 on 09.10.2017 with regard to compliance of the order dated 04.08.2017 in which the State Information Officer has categorically indicated in paragraph no.3 of the order to provide information to the applicant (private Respondent no.8 of the present case). Counsel submits that the information which has been provided to the Respondent no.8 through speed-post has also been submitted in the office of the State Information Commission which is Annexure-12 contained in Memo No. 1431 dated 06.10.2017. Counsel further submits that with a Patna High Court CWJC No.4112 of 2018 dt.21-03-2025 5/11 view to fulfill his responsibility on the post he was working on the next appointed date i.e. 21.11.2017 he could not appear before the Court, whereas, Counsel for the petitioner submits that on 21.11.2017, he could not appear and his representative was there who could not communicate properly to the State Information Commission with regard to the factual matrix of the case in which Rs.10,000/- cost has been imposed upon him payable from his salary. Thereafter, petitioner has moved before this Court and this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 15.03.2018 has pleased to stay the order impugned regarding payment of cost. Counsel further submits that from the minute reading of the order dated 04.08.2017, it is specific direction to him to provide information to the informant (Respondent no.8) according to him which he has specifically complied by sending the entire information vide Annexure-12 through speed-post through his Memo No. 1431 dated 06.10.2017 i.e. prior to passing the order imposing cost of Rs.10,000/- to him. He submits that the said order has been passed due to mis- communication on the part of his officials due to his administrative work and he could not present on the said date. 5. Learned Counsel for State Information Commission, Patna on the other hand submits that the order Patna High Court CWJC No.4112 of 2018 dt.21-03-2025 6/11 dated 04.08.2017 and 21.11.2017, both have been passed completely in accordance with law. Counsel further submits that vide order dated 04.08.2017, it become crystal clear that the petitioner was present in person before the Court and the said order has been passed in his physical presence, where specific direction was given to the petitioner for compliance of the order which he has not complied and if, complied, he has not properly communicated on the next appointed date i.e. 09.10.2017. In result, on the next date i.e. 21.11.2017, the State Information Commission has passed the order imposing a cost of Rs.10,000/- on him and in this view of the matter, there is absolutely no need of any interference in the order as petitioner is absolutely at fault and there is no need of any interference in the same. 6. Learned Counsel for the State submits that counter affidavit has been filed in this case and the State authorities in compliance of the order passed by the State Information Commission do all the needful and proper communication has been made by the Collector of the district to the subsequent subordinate officials for its compliance. But, by order passed by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 15.03.2018, stay has been granted in favour of the petitioner. Counsel Patna High Court CWJC No.4112 of 2018 dt.21-03-2025 7/11 submits that order has been passed by the Quasi Judicial Authority and on the merit or demerit, State has nothing to say. 7. Upon hearing the parties and going through the documents particularly, three different dates are very much relevant i.e. the first date is 04.08.2017 from which, it transpires to this Court that the order dated 04.08.2017 has been passed in the presence of the petitioner, where the specific direction has been given to him which states as follows:- “ आवेदक उपसससत है और बताते है सक उनहे अभी तक यह नहीं बताया गया है सक गोपालगंज सजले मे वर 2011-12, 2012-13 और 2013-14 मे कौन- कौन से सवदालय ऐसे से सजनहे सी०बी०एस०ई० और आई०सी०एस०ई० से संबदता izkIr से। उन सभी सवदालयो मे सशका का असधकार असधसनयम के izko/kku के अंतगरत असभवंसचत वगर के सवदाससरयो के सलए 25 izfr kr ” की सरसकत के सवरद सकतने बचचो का नामांकन सकया गया, इसका सववरण भी अभी तक उपलबध नहीं कराया गया है। 2. Jh jk?kOksUnz मसण f=ikBh, लोक सूचना पदासधकारी-सह- सजला dk;Zdze पदासधकारी Patna High Court CWJC No.4112 of 2018 dt.21-03-2025 8/11 ( सवर सशका), सबहार सशका पसरयोजना, गोपालगंज सुनवाई के समय उपसससत हुए। उनहोने बताया सक वर 2011-12, 2012-13 मे कोई भी सकूल ऐसा नहीं सा सजसे izLohd`fr izkIr सी। लोक सूचना पदासधकारी यह सपषट करे सक यहाँ izLohd`fr का vfHkizk; कया है? कया यह सशका का असधकार असधसनयम के अधीन izLohd`r है या कु छ और। 3. लोक सूचना पदासधकारी सुनवाई की अगली सतसस के पूवर आवेदक को यह सूचना उपलबध करावे सक गोपालगंज सजले मे वर 2011-12, 2012-13 और 2013-14 मे सकन- सकन सवदालयो को सी०बी०एस०ई० और आई०सी०एस०ई० से संबदता izkIr सी तसा उन सभी सवदालयो मे सशका का असधकार असधसनयम के izko/kku के अंतगरत असभवंसचत वगर के सवदाससरयो के सलए 25 izfr kr ” की सरसकत के सवरद सकतने बचचो का नामांकन सकया गया। सूचना की izfr आयोग को भी दी जाए। 4. वाद की अगली सुनवाई सदनांक 09.10.2017 को अपराह 02.30 बजे सनधारसरत Patna High Court CWJC No.4112 of 2018 dt.21-03-2025 9/11 ” की जाती है। 8. In response thereof, Counsel for the petitioner submits that prior to 09.10.2017, petitioner has complied the order and submitted the information before the State Information Commission. 9. It transpires to this Court vide Annexure-12 that this is not the way about compliance of a judicial order, as the said compliance has not been made by way of application, rather, it transpires that only a seal dated 09.10.2017 of State Information Commission is affixed on the petition and from Annexure-12, it transpires that the said application has not been filed before the Court, when the date was already fixed in this case. If, the petitioner has complied the order, he ought to file the same in the form of application, before the Court so that the Quasi Judicial Court may acknowledge the same in the order sheet which are lacking in the present case. It also transpires to this Court that the petitioner was also reluctant that since, he has complied the order dated 04.08.2017, therefore, he sent his representative before the Court on 21.11.2017 again without any information that order dated 04.08.2017 has already been complied. 10. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the firm view that in absence of proper communication, order dated Patna High Court CWJC No.4112 of 2018 dt.21-03-2025 10/11 21.11.2017 has been passed which is completely in accordance with law. Upon minute reading of paragraph no.3 of the order dated 04.08.2017 i.e. " लोक सूचना पदासधकारी सुनवाई की अगली सतसस के पूवर आवेदक को यह सूचना उपलबध करावे सक गोपालगंज सजले मे वर 2011-12, 2012-13 और 2013-14 मे सकन- सकन सवदालयो को सी०बी०एस०ई० और आई०सी०एस०ई० से संबदता izkIr सी तसा उन सभी सवदालयो मे सशका का असधकार असधसनयम के izko/kku के अंतगरत असभवंसचत वगर के सवदाससरयो के सलए 25 izfr kr ” की सरसकत के सवरद सकतने बचचो का नामांकन सकया गया। सूचना की izfr आयोग को भी दी जाए". Meaning thereby, the petitioner was directed to provide information to the informant (Respondent no.8) which he has done vide Annexure-12. But the mistake has been done on his part that he has not filed this communication to the information in a proper performa before the State Information Commission and only due to this mistake, the order has been passed dated 21.11.2017. It transpires to this Court that the petitioner is a new Officer and has less knowledge of the Quasi Judicial proceedings, therefore, due to this mistake, such order has been passed. Only due to this reason, this Court hereby directs to the petitioner that in future, such mistake must not done by him. It has been directed vide order dated 21.11.2017 that “blfy, muds mij #0 10]000 /- dk vkfFkZd Patna High Court CWJC No.4112 of 2018 dt.21-03-2025 11/11 naM vf/kjksfir djrs gq, mldh olwyh ,d eq r muds osru ls ” dVkSrh fd;s tkus dk vkns k fn;k tkrk gSA ” ” is hereby removed with a warning that in future, he shall not commit such mistake and the said remark/punishment shall not be a barrier in his career in future. But in case, petitioner commit such mistake again in future, then the future mistake and the earlier mistake, both shall be taken into consideration in his career. 11. Accordingly, this writ petition is hereby disposed off. Divyansh/- (Dr. Anshuman, J) AFR/NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 28/03/2025 Transmission Date NA