2026:JHHC:11359 -1- W.P.(C) No.3206 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI ---- W.P.(C) No.3206 of 2009 ---- Madan Lal Das, son of late Chhabi Rajak, resident of Kunwar Singh Colony, Air Port Road, PO Hinoo, PS Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand .... Petitioner -- Versus -- 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.State Information Commission, through its Secretary, PO Dhurwa, PS- Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi 3.Randhir Nidhi, son of not known, resident of D.S.P. Road, PO + PS + Distt. Gumla, Jharkhand .... Opposite Party ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Deepak Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Harshpreet Singh, Advocate For State Information Comm.:- Mr. Sanjoy Piprawal, Advocate Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate ---- 5/16.04.2026 The notice upon respondent No.3 has already been issued and pursuant to that, Mr. Nirmal Kumar, the learned counsel has already filed the Vakalatnama, and in spite of that, on repeated calls, nobody has responded on behalf of the respondent no.3. 2. As this matter is of the year 2009 and pursuant to the 2026:JHHC:11359 -2- W.P.(C) No.3206 of 2009 notice upon the respondent no.3 nobody has responded on behalf of the respondent no.3 on repeated calls and as such, this matter is being heard in absence of respondent no.3. 3. Heard Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Harshpreet Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State as well as Mr. Sanjoy Piprawal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Jharkhand State Information Commission. 4. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order 09.02.2009 passed by the learned State Information Commission, Jharkhand, Ranchi in Appeal No.379 of 2008 whereby a penalty of Rs.25,000/- has been imposed upon the petitioner in addition to compensatory amount of Rs.80,000/- which was to be paid by the Department and also a direction has been issued for initiation of departmental proceeding against this petitioner. 5. Mr. Deepak Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that respondent no.3, under the Rights to Information Act, sought following information, from the office of the petitioner: “(a) To furnish the list of year wise allotment made to the DRDA, Gumla, for various programmes during the last five years; 2026:JHHC:11359 -3- W.P.(C) No.3206 of 2009 (b) To make available year wise and programme wise account for received allotment against which expenditure were made along with the left amount (c) Whether cash book relating to allotted money in the last five years for various programmes has been put to audit or not? If yes, whether received allotment and money spent were equivalent? If not, that irregularities were found in the audit? Make available the attested copies of the comments made by various agencies which conducted the audit during the period of last five years.” 6. He next submits that the petitioner has earlier supplied the information regarding Issue no.1 and 2 as mentioned in paragraph no.4. He next submits that the petitioner has also taken a reasonable step for supplying the information regarding the Issue No.3, which is evident from the letter No.728 dated 13.7.2007 contained in Annexure-1. By way of referring Annexure-2, he submits that the petitioner took reasonable steps to obtain the information from the District Rural Development Authority (DRDA), Gumla as the Issue relates to the said office. The said information was provided to the respondent no.3 through the Office of the first appellate authority who is the Deputy Commissioner through letter no.112 dated 21.1.2008. He next submits that in spite of receiving 2026:JHHC:11359 -4- W.P.(C) No.3206 of 2009 the information, respondent no.3 filed the second appeal before the State Information Commission. He next submits that the petitioner took all efforts to attend the proceeding before the learned State Information Commission, directly or through its representative on 15.12.2008. It has been ensured that if the information is not provided, that will be provided. He further submits that due to some unavoidable circumstances, the petitioner was not present before the State Information Commission on 28.11.2008 and on that day itself, the said order was passed whereby the compensation as well as the penalty has been imposed upon the petitioner. He next submits that the said order has been passed in absence of providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and on 09.2.2009, the final order was passed against the petitioner for not providing the information to the satisfaction of the information seeker. He next submits that there is no reason provided as to how the information provided by the petitioner was not satisfactory, and in a cryptic manner, the punishment order has been passed. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State submits that this order has been passed by the respondent no.2, who is State Information Commission and the main dispute is there between the respondent nos.2 and 3 and the petitioner. 2026:JHHC:11359 -5- W.P.(C) No.3206 of 2009 8. Mr. Sanjoy Piprawal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2/ State Information Commission, submits that the learned Commissioner is empowered to pass such order and when the authority has found that the same was not provided, the said order has been passed and there is no illegality in the impugned order and as such, this writ petition may kindly be dismissed. He also submits that the order of compensation can be challenged only by the Department. He next submits that, however, the order of penalty and the departmental proceeding order can be challenged by the petitioner. 9. It is an admitted position that the petitioner herein was a Public Information Officer in the Office of the Deputy Development Commissioner (DDC), Gumla, under the District Rural Development Authority, Gumla. Three informations have been sought by the respondent no.3. The information nos.1 and 2 have already been provided, as noted in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. A supplementary affidavit has been filed annexing the order dated 21.01.2008 passed by the first appellate authority in First Appeal No.36 of 2007 wherein, the learned first appellate authority has recorded that the information has already been supplied and there is no objection received from the information seeker. It has also been noted in the said order that it 2026:JHHC:11359 -6- W.P.(C) No.3206 of 2009 has been provided in 25 pages and the said information is annexed in the writ petition as Annexure-2. Thus, prima-facie, even the third information has been provided and in view of that, the first appellate authority has dropped the proceeding and directed to inform both the sides, the respondent no.3 has preferred the second appeal and pursuant to that, the impugned order has been passed. On perusal of the said impugned order, it is not clear as to how the said information provided by the petitioner was not satisfactory and complete and there is no reason provided, and in view of that, the order is contradictory to the order of the first appellate court. 10. In the impugned order, the learned Information Commissioner has simply observed that the information was not correctly and satisfactorily provided to the information seeker which prima-facie appears to contradictory in light of the Annexure-2 which is the information provided and the order of the appellate authority contained as Annexure-A in the supplementary counter affidavit, the order dated 21.01.2008. 11. In view of Section (19)(7)(e) of the Right to Information Act, 2025, the compensation can only be challenged by the Department, however, the penalty against the petitioner has been passed under section 20(1)(2) of the said Act. 2026:JHHC:11359 -7- W.P.(C) No.3206 of 2009 12. In view of the above, it is crystal clear that no reason has been provided in the impugned order as to how the information provided by the petitioner as contained in Annexure-2 as well as in light of the order of the learned appellate authority dated 21.01.2008, was not supplied correctly and satisfactorily and that is not demonstrated in the said impugned order. 13. In view of the above facts and reasons, the part of the order dated 09.02.2009 passed by the learned Information Commissioner, Jharkhand State Information Commission, Ranchi, Jharkhand, in appeal No.379 of 2008 by which the penalty of Rs.25,000/- and departmental proceeding as recommended against the petitioner, is, hereby, quashed. 14. This Writ Petition being W.P.(C) No.3206 of 2009 is allowed in part, and stands disposed of, in the above terms. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated: 16.04.2026 SI/ A.F.R.