18.09.2025 sayandeep Sl. No. 22 Ct. No. 551 WPA 2547 of 2025 Heramba Nath Chakraborty Versus State of West Bengal & ors. Mr. Sabyasachi Chatterjee Mr. Badrul Karim Mr. Aritro Ghosh ….. For the petitioner Mr. Sirsanya Bandyopadhyay Ms. Tapati Samanta Mr. Arindam Ghosh ….. For the State Mr. Raja Saha Mr. S. Mukherjee ….. For the respondent No. 4 Mr. Samir Kumar Adhikari …. For the respondent No. 5 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated July 22, 2024 passed by the West Bengal Information Commission thereby disposing of the petitioner’s second appeal under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. 2. The petitioner is an Assistant Teacher at Kadma High School. Prior to the petitioner being transferred to Kadma High School, he was serving at the same post at Nayabasana Janakalyan Vidyapith (H.S.). 3. On January 7, 2022, the petitioner made an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking the following three information from the SPIO of Nayabasana Janakalyan Vidyapith (H.S.): 2 A) Certified copies of the attendance register of the petitioner from January 1, 2020 to September 20, 2021. B) Certified copies of the resolutions taken by the Managing Committee of this School from January 1, 2020 to September 20, 2021. C) Certified copies of the acquaintance roll from January 1, 2020 to September 20, 2021. 4. While the petitioner was supplied the first and third information, i.e., the certified copies of the attendance register and the acquaintance roll, the third information sought i.e. certified copies of the resolutions of the Managing Committee was not supplied to the petitioner. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner moved the appellate authority under Section 19(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 but the result was not satisfactory for the petitioner. Remaining dissatisfied even at the first appellate stage, the petitioner moved the second appellate authority being the West Bengal Information Commission (hereafter “the Commission”) by way of second appeal under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. 6. The Commission ultimately disposed of the petitioner’s second appeal by an order dated July 22, 2024 observing as follows: “Deliberation and Decision: 3 5. The appellant, the first appellate and the SPIO were present virtually. 6. The appellant submitted that he got the reply to his two RTI applications dated 14-9- 2020 and 05-7-2021 and was satisfied but he was not satisfied / did not get reply to query no.2 of his third RTI application dated 18-01-2022 wherein he sought photocopies of resolution of the MC from 01-01-2020 to 20-9-2021. 7. The appellant further added that he had filed the RTI application to know how much amount has accrued in his GPF account. When he did not get any reply, he went to the Hon'ble High Court. He stated that, in all, he filed four court cases. The appellant submitted that only after intervention of the Hon'ble High Court, did he receive the information about the amount in his GPF Account. The appellant in the end also wanted to be forgiven if he has caused any violation of the RTI Act. 8. The Headmaster of the school submitted the appellant was provided reply to query no.2 by hand, but the appellant still denied to have received any. The Headmaster also submitted that after the appellant submitted application related to his GPF he was provided information. 9. On query, the appellant replied that his aim was to get GPF and other issues, when the SPIO intervened and submitted that the appellant himself admitted to have got on the order of the Hon'ble High Court. Then the appellant changed that his intention is to get information related to his service matters. When the appellant was asked to be specific about the information he seeks, he talked general and vaguely as 10 yrs benefit, date- of-joining confirmation, approval regarding his training etc. 10. The Commission, after deliberation and discussion, observed that despite the SPIO replying to the appellant to his so many queries, the appellant's intention seems to be harassing his former employer. It also came up during the discussion that he has since been transferred and posted to another school. 11. The appellant is advised that he uses his right under RTI Act keeping in view the true spirit of the RTI Act and various judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court namely (i) 4 Aditya Bandyapadhya vs. CBSE, (2011) and (ii) The Institute of Chartered Accountant of India Vs. Shaunak H Satya and Ors (2011. It was also reminded to him the RTI Act is not meant to harass the former employer. The case is closed. 12. The matter is disposed of.” 7. Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated July 22, 2024 the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition. 8. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and considered the material on record. 9. The observations made by the Commission, which have been quoted hereinabove make it evident that the Information Commission has steered clear of the petitioner’s real requirement and has beaten about the bush. The specific case of the petitioner was that certified copies of the resolutions of the Managing Committee of Nayabasana Janakalyan Vidyapith (H.S.) had not been supplied to the petitioner. 10. If the petitioner was (is) disentitled to the said information in terms of the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 then it was incumbent on the Commission to specifically indicate the same and decline the relief sought for by the petitioner upon providing reasons therefor. Instead, the Commission has gone on to observe that “despite the SPIO replying to the appellant to his so many queries, the appellant's intention seems to be harassing his former employer. It also came up during the discussion that he has since been transferred and 5 posted to another school”. The petitioner may have been transferred from Nayabasana Janakalyan Vidyapith (H.S.) but the resolutions of the Managing Committee that have been sought for pertain to the period while the petitioner was serving at the said school. There is no reason indicated by the Commission in the order impugned as to why is the information not suppliable or furnishable to the petitioner. By not providing any reason for refusing to supply the requested information, the Commission has failed to discharge its statutory obligation. 11. This Court also takes note that the respondent school authority has by a letter dated March 9, 2022, addressed to the petitioner, in response to his request for certified copies of the resolutions of the Managing Committee of the school, conveyed as follows: “For Query – (2) It is not related to you, so it is not under the provisions of RTI Act, 2005.” However, before the Commission, the stand of the said school was that certified copies of the resolution had been supplied to the petitioner physically i.e. by hand. The same would be apparent from a reading of paragraph 8 of the order impugned. The two stands taken by the said school are evidently contradictory. This ought to have been taken note of by the Commission as well. In such 6 view of the matter, the order dated July 22, 2024 passed by the West Bengal Information Commission is hereby set aside. 12. The matter is remanded back to the Commission for a fresh decision. The commission shall decide the petitioner’s second appeal under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 pertaining to the request for information dated January 18, 2022, afresh, as regards the aspect as to whether the certified copies of the resolutions taken by the Managing Committee of Kadma High School during the period January 01, 2020 to September 20, 2021 should be supplied to the petitioner or not within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of communication of this order, in accordance with law, upon hearing all parties. 13. It is clarified that this order shall not be treated as a command to supply the information sought for by the petitioner to him, if the petitioner is not entitled to the same in law. It is also clarified that in case, it is found that the petitioner is entitled to such information, the Commission shall ensure that such information is supplied to the petitioner at the earliest in accordance with law and that in case it is found by the Commission that the petitioner is not entitled to the said information, the Commission shall give adequate reasons indicating why such information has been refused or should be refused 7 to be supplied to the petitioner. The entire exercise should be completed within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of communication of this order. 14. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition being WPA 2547 of 2025 stands disposed of without any order as to costs. 15. Urgent photostat certified copy, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Om Narayan Rai, J.)