Mr. Mehta, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners,
submitted that the Information Commissioner has committed an error awarding
the monetary compensation without considering that the information sought for
by the petitioners during pendency of the Second Appeal was not available. The
information was sought regarding the documents, which were missing. The
Information Commissioner has also not appreciated that there was no ill will or
malafide intention and the petitioners were prevented from supplying the
information under the circumstance beyond their control. He further submitted
that the award of compensation is wholly without any basis and is arbitrary and
unwarranted. The impugned orders are, thus, liable to be quashed.
All those circumstances based
on records were almost admitted by the petitioners and were duly considered by
learned Information Commissioner and some compensation was awarded.
Though the compensation was not adequate, the respondent no.2 has not
raised any objection regarding the same, in the hope that the same will be paid
to him.
W.P.(C) No.2132 of 2009 with W.P.(C) no.2143 of 2009
In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
---
1.Public Information Officer, Ranchi University[W.P.(C) no.2132/09]
2.Registrar, Ranchi University[(W.P.(C)no.2143/09] …. Petitioners
Versus
(in both cases)
1.Jharkhand State Information Commissioner, Ranchi
2.Dr.Shyama Raman Pandey ...Respondents
----
---
P R E S E N T
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Narendra Nath Tiwari
By Court: In these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the orders of the
learned State Information Commissioner, Ranchi, whereunder learned
Information Commissioner has held that the petitioners failed to furnish the
information and comply with the orders and has awarded compensation of
Rs.50,000/- and Rs.25,000/- respectively.
2. Since the common questions of law based on almost similar facts
situation are involved, with the consent of the parties, both these writ petitions
have been taken up and heard together and being disposed of by this common
order.
3. The orders have been challenged mainly on the ground that learned
Information Commissioner has passed the orders without considering the facts
and circumstances, placed before him by the petitioners and has awarded
compensation without any cogent basis. The orders of the Information
commissioner are, thus, wholly arbitrary and illegal.
4. Mr. Mehta, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners,
submitted that the Information Commissioner has committed an error awarding
the monetary compensation without considering that the information sought for
by the petitioners during pendency of the Second Appeal was not available. The
information was sought regarding the documents, which were missing. The
Information Commissioner has also not appreciated that there was no ill will or
malafide intention and the petitioners were prevented from supplying the
information under the circumstance beyond their control. He further submitted
that the award of compensation is wholly without any basis and is arbitrary and
unwarranted. The impugned orders are, thus, liable to be quashed.
5. The respondent no.2(private respondent) has appeared in person and
supported the orders of learned Information Commissioner. He submitted that
the orders of learned Information Commissioner are well discussed and based
on facts and materials on record. The applicant/respondent no.2 had sought
information relating to pay fixation, insurance papers and other materials. He
was teachers appointed in the Ranchi University and subsequently promoted up.2.
to the post of University Professor. It is wholly unbelievable that the information
relating to pay fixation and insurance papers are not available. But information
relating to statement of payment of salary from 1980, loan deducted, file relating
to deposit of deducted portion of D.A. with PF, relevant file showing the rate of
interest from 1967 to 1994 actually paid to the applicant/respondent no.2 and
the similar other related information sought for, deliberately were not furnished.
The said reply was given by the Ranchi University after harassing the
applicant/respondent no.2 for about 15 months. All those circumstances based
on records were almost admitted by the petitioners and were duly considered by
learned Information Commissioner and some compensation was awarded.
Though the compensation was not adequate, the respondent no.2 has not
raised any objection regarding the same, in the hope that the same will be paid
to him. The University even thereafter adopted harassing attitude and filed these
writ petitions and has unnecessarily dragged the respondent no.2 to this Court.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and respondent no.2(in
person). I also perused the impugned orders. The petitioners, as aforesaid,
have mainly assailed the orders of learned Information Commissioner on the
ground that he has passed the impugned orders without properly considering
the facts and materials on record and has not assigned any cogent reason for
awarding compensation of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.25,000/- respectively in the said
two cases.
7. I find no substance in the submissions of the petitioners.
8. Learned Information commissioner has taken into consideration every
aspect of the said case and he has discussed the facts and materials on record
and has awarded compensation, exercising his discretionary power. I find no
ground made out to interfere with the said discretion, exercised by learned
Information Commissioner.
9. The orders of learned Information Commissioner are thoroughly
discussed and well considered and I find no arbitrariness and illegality.
10. These writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.
( Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.)
Jharkhand High Court
Ranchi
19th January,2012
N.A.F.R./s.b.
No comments:
Post a Comment