2026:JHHC:18043-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 835 of 2025 --- Hari Nandan Singh, son of Late Budhan Singh, resident of Quarter No. 2363, Sector-4/D, P.O. & P.S.- Sector-4, Bokaro Steel City, District- Boakro … … Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2.The Jharkhand State Information Commission, Ranchi, through its Secretary 3. Mr. Satish Chandra, Sub-Divisional Officer, Chas-cum-the Public Information Officer, P.O. & P.S.- Chas, District- Bokaro …. … Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --- For the Appellant : Mr. Hari Nandan Singh, In Person For the Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, S.C.-IV For the Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate For the Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Abhay Prakash, Advocate Mr. Namashyu Kejriwal, Advocate --- Reserved on 15.06.2026 Pronounced on 22.06.2026 Per : Rajesh Shankar, J. : 1. The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 24.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 1050 of 2021 whereby the said writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/appellant has been dismissed observing that the required information can be supplied only if the same is available in the office and if the information is not available, then it is not an information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short, “the Act, 2005”). It has further been observed that since the counter affidavit filed by the State respondent clearly states that no report with respect to Point No. (ii) of the applicant’s 2026:JHHC:18043-DB 2 application was available in the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chas, the required information could not be supplied to him. 2. The appellant appears before this Court in person. He submits that an application under the Act, 2005 was filed by him before the Sub- Divisional Officer- cum- Public Information Officer, Chas seeking following information: - (i) Attested copy of the “Janch report” submitted by the Sub- Divisional Officer, Chas to the Deputy Development Commissioner, Bokaro in the light of his compliant to the ‘Lokayukta’, Jharkhand, Ranchi. (ii) Attested copy of the report submitted by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chas to the Deputy Development Commissioner, Bokaro in response to letter no. 80/Conf. dated 06.04.2017 sent by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Bokaro, Bokaro to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chas and received in the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chas on 10.04.2017. 3. It is further submitted that vide memo no. 900 dated 19.08.2017 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chas, the appellant was supplied the information only with respect to Point No. (i) mentioned in his application. As regards the information sought by the appellant under Point No. (ii), he was informed vide memo no. 901 dated 21.08.2017 that the letter dated 06.04.2017 issued by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Bokaro was not found received in the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chas. 4. The appellant also submits that he had initially filed first appeal before 2026:JHHC:18043-DB 3 the Additional Collector, Bokaro-cum-First Appellate Authority, however the required information was not supplied to him. Thereafter, he filed the second appeal before the Jharkhand State Information Commission, Ranchi which was registered as Appeal Case No. 2855 of 2017. The said appeal was disposed of by the Jharkhand State Information Commission, Ranchi vide order dated 28.01.2020 observing that the document relating to the required information was not available in the office of the Sub- Divisional Officer, Chas. 5. The appellant thereafter preferred writ petition before this Court being W.P.(C) No. 1050 of 2021, however the same was dismissed vide impugned order dated 24.11.2025 observing that under the Act, 2005, an information has to be supplied to the applicant only if the same is available in the concerned office. It has further been observed that since the counter affidavit filed by the State respondent clearly states that no report with respect to Point No. (ii) of the applicant’s application was available in the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chas, the required information could not be supplied to him. 6. It is further argued by the appellant that as per the provision of Section 4 of the Act, 2005, it was obligatory on the part of the Public Information Officer i.e., the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chas to maintain the record of Letter no. 80/Conf., Bokaro dated 06.04.2017, however the said letter was destroyed and the appellant was informed that the required information was not available in the concerned office. 7. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 & 3 jointly submit that the information sought by the appellant under Point No. (i) 2026:JHHC:18043-DB 4 of his application was supplied to him within time, however the information under Point No. (ii) could not be furnished to him due to non- availability of the letter dated 06.04.2017 said to have been issued by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Bokaro to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chas. 8. It is further submitted that since the letter dated 06.04.2017 was not available in the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Public Information Officer, Chas, the said officer cannot be penalized for his inability to provide the required information under Point No. (ii) as mentioned in the application of the appellant. 9. It is also contended that despite inquiry conducted by the Additional Collector, Bokaro under the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, the letter dated 06.04.2017 could not be traced in the office of the Sub- Divisional Officer, Chas as it was not found received in the receiving register of the said office. 10. Heard the appellant appearing in person as well as the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the materials available on record. 11. The claim of the appellant is that the letter dated 06.04.2017 issued by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Bokaro was received in the confidential section of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chas on 10.04.2017, whereas the stand of the respondent nos. 1 and 3 is that the information under Point No. (ii) could not be supplied to the appellant as the letter dated 06.04.2017 was not found received in the receiving register of the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chas. 12. It would be pertinent to mention the order dated 16.03.2026 earlier 2026:JHHC:18043-DB 5 passed in the present appeal which reads as under: - “1. Heard the petitioner in person and the learned counsel for the Respondents. 2. Based upon a document at page-98 of the paper book, the petitioner contends that the copy of the DDC’s letter dated 06.04.2017 was received by the SDO’s Office on 10.04.2017. He now adds that this letter was received in the confidential section maintained by the SDO. 3. By invoking the provisions of the Right to Information Act (RTI), the petitioner has been seeking the response of the SDO in form of a report or otherwise to the DDC’s letter dated 06.04.2017. 4. The SDO (R-3) has contended that the DDC’s letter dated 06.04.2017 was never received in his office. The affidavit does not say anything about the document at page-98. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3, very casually states that this letter is doubtful. We cannot appreciate such a submission particularly since it is not even pleaded in the affidavit. Besides, styling any inconvenient document as ‘doubtful’ cannot be appreciated. The reasons for the doubt, whether any inquiry was conducted regarding this document, etc. have to be provided. 5. In the above circumstances, the petitioner now contends that he is being denied information on the spacious plea that it is not available. He submits that such pleas, if accepted, would frustrate the objective of the RTI. He submits that when there is a written document at page-98, which has not been disputed, the SDO cannot claim that the DDC’s letter of 06.04.2017 was never received and consequently, no response or report was prepared. 6. In the above circumstances, we direct the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro to look into the matter, hold an inquiry and file an affidavit regarding the status of the communication dated 06.04.2017 and the response, if 2026:JHHC:18043-DB 6 any, to the same. Since the petitioner contends that the letter of 06.04.2017 was received in the confidential section of the SDO’s Office, the Deputy Commissioner should also inquire into that angel and file an affidavit / report, latest by 10.04.2026 by giving an advance copy to the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 3rd Respondent. 7. We post this matter for further consideration on 13.04.2026.” 13. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of this Court, the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro made enquiry in the matter and filed counter affidavit dated 12.06.2026 stating that vide letter dated 28.04.2026, the Additional Collector, Bokaro was directed to submit a report with respect to the fact that the letter dated 06.04.2017 issued by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Bokaro had been received in the office of the Sub Divisional Officer, Chas or not and further to record the statements of the concerned employees working and posted in the Office of the Deputy Development Commissioner, Bokaro and the Sub Divisional Officer, Chas at the relevant point of time. 14. The Additional Collector, Bokaro, vide letter no. 1140 dated 04.06.2026, submitted a detailed report to the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro after conducting a proper enquiry mentioning that the statements of several employees, who had been posted and working at that time in the Office of the Deputy Development Commissioner, Bokaro and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chas, were recorded. However, statements of some of the employees could not be recorded as they had already retired or died. It was further mentioned in the report that in view of the said circumstance, it could not be verified as to who had received the letter dated 06.04.2017 2026:JHHC:18043-DB 7 in the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chas. 15. The Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro also held a review meeting on 04.06.2026 in presence of the other officials wherein it surfaced that the appellant’s concern was relating to grabbing of his land by the adjoining raiyat and pursuant to repeated applications made by the appellant, the measurement of the land in question was done by different amins several times, however the demarcation of the said land could not be done as the proper land details (“Chauhaddi”) were not provided in the sale deed of the appellant. The Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, vide order dated 27.10.2021, observed that since the matter was related to title/ownership of the land in question, he had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the same. 16. Thus, despite the enquiry made by the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, it could not be found as to whether the letter dated 06.04.2017 was received in the office of the Sub Divisional Officer, Chas. The allegation of the appellant that the said letter was destroyed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chas, has not been proved in the inquiry made by the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro. Since receiving of letter dated 06.04.2017 in the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chas is itself doubtful, it would not be proper to penalize the respondent no. 3 under the Act, 2005 for non- supply of the information sought by the appellant under Point No. (ii) mentioned in his application. 17. Moreover, there is nothing on record to show that the respondent no. 3 had deliberately refused to furnish the information sought by the appellant with respect to Point No. (ii). In fact, the required information 2026:JHHC:18043-DB 8 under Point No. (i) of the application was provided to the appellant within prescribed time which also shows the bonafide of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chas. It seems that the concern of the appellant is with respect to encroachment of his land by the adjoining raiyat for which the appellant has remedy to approach the competent court of law. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the order dated 24.11.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No. 1050 of 2021. So far as the issue of land dispute raised by the appellant is concerned, he is at liberty to take appropriate recourse before the competent court of law. 19. The present appeal is, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid liberty. 20. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (M.S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) June 22, 2026 Ritesh/N.A.F.R. Uploaded on 22.06.2026