Jharkhand High Court
Ganesh Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand; on 17 January, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.903 of 2014
------
Ganesh Kumar, son of Late Shiv Mahato, Additional Deputy
Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Town Jamshedpur, P.O.-Bistupur,
P.S.-Bistupur, District-East Singhhum Jharkhand
…. …. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand;
2. Information Commissioner, Jharkhand State Information
Commission, Engineer Hostel No.3, HEC Campus, Dhurwa, P.O.-
Dhurwa, P.S.-Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand;
3. Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, P.O.-
Bistupur, P.S.-Bistupur, District-East Singhbhum;
4. Bhola Prasad, son of Late Gowardhan Saw Daiguttu Cross Road
No.7, H.No.23 P.O.-Azad Nagar, P.S.-Azad Nagar, Mango, Town
Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand
…. …. Respondents
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
——
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Navneet Toppo, AC to GP-I
For the Resp. No.2 : Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate
Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate
For the Resp. No.4 : Mrs. Amrita Sinha, Advocate
------
15/Dated: 17.01.2025
1. This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India is directed against the order dated 26.08.2013 passed by the
State Information Commission, whereby and whereunder, the
penalty under Section 20(1)(2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 2005’) as imposed upon the
petitioner, has been questioned.
2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ
petition, are required to be enumerated, which read as under:-
1
(i) It is the case of the petitioner that he was posted as Addl.
Deputy Commissioner, since 23.02.2012 in the office of Deputy
Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur. The petitioner has
been designated as Public Information Officer in terms of letter
no.3047 dated 06.09.2005 issued by the Department of Personnel,
Administrative Reform and Official Language, Govt. of Jharkhand for
the purpose of providing information to the persons seeking
information.
(ii) The respondent no.4, vide his application dated 10.11.2010
addressed to the respondent no.3 expressed his grievance related to
mutation appeal no.04 of 2005-06 dated 10.12.2007 pending before
the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur
against the order of Circle Officer, Jamshedpur and sought
information about his letter dated 10.11.2010 and 02.12.2010. Since
the matter related to Circle Officer, on receipt of letter dated
02.12.2011 under the Act, the then Addl. Deputy Commissioner cum
Public Information Officer vide his letter no.2470 dated 09.12.2011
transmitted the application to the Circle Officer, Jamshedpur cum
Public Information Officer under Section 6(3) of the Act, 2005 with a
copy to the respondent no.4 and also informing him that the Public
Information Officer in respect of his case was Circle Officer,
Jamshedpur and the first appellate authority at the relevant time was
Sub Divisional Officer, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur and the applicant
was advised to obtain the required information by approaching the
aforesaid officials. In terms of letter no.2470 dated 09.12.2011, the
2
Circle Officer, Jamshedpur cum Public Information Officer,
Jamshedpur supplied the information to the respondent no.4 and
forwarded the copy of the same to the then Addl. Deputy
Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur.
(iii) In spite of furnishing the information by the competent Public
Information Officer, the respondent no.4 without approaching the
competent authority, has filed a second appeal before the Chief
Information Commissioner, Jharkhand State Information
Commission.
(iv) On receipt of the same from the respondent no.2, the
Commission through its Deputy Secretary vide letter no.6432 dated
19.07.2012 directed the petitioner to provide information to the
respondent no.4 and submit explanation on 03.09.2012 failing which
ex parte order shall be passed. Thereafter, the petitioner had also
directed the Circle Officer cum Public Information Officer,
Jamshedpur to comply with the directions of the respondent no.2.
The Circle Officer cum Public Information Officer, Jamshedpur
complied with the direction of the respondent no.2.
(v) It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondent no.4
vide his petition dated 05.11.2012 made a representation to the
petitioner fully knowing that the Public Information Officer in his case,
was the Circle Officer, Jamshedpur.
(vi) The petitioner, thereafter, has forwarded the representation
dated 05.11.2012 of the respondent no.4 to the appropriate Public
Information Officer for disposal of objections of the respondent no.4
3
and ensure furnishing required information.
(vii) The respondent no.2 vide order dated 29.05.2013 directed the
petitioner to redress the grievance of the respondent no.4 and supply
the information and submit explanation as to why punitive order be
not passed for delay supply of information. Thereafter, the Circle
Officer cum Public Information Officer, vide his letter no.1489 dated
22.08.2013 reported compliance of order dated 29.05.2013 passed
by the respondent no.2 and reported the same to the Deputy
Secretary (Incharge), State Information Commission, Jharkhand,
Ranchi
(viii) The respondent no.4 vide his letter dated 16.08.2013
addressed to the petitioner made representation against the
information supplied to him by the appropriate Public Information
Officer, i.e., the Circle Officer, Jamshedpur. The petitioner being not
the Public Information Officer nor the appellate authority, forwarded
the letter dated 16.08.2013 of the respondent no.4 to the Circle
Officer, Jamshedpur vide his letter dated 1536 dated 22.08.2013 with
a copy to the respondent no.4 for addressing the grievance to the
respondent no.4.
(viii) In proceeding dated 26.08.2013, both the parties presented
before the learned Information Commissioner and the Information
Commissioner has found the explanations unsatisfactory, therefore,
while rejecting the explanations, the Information Commissioner was
pleased to hold that the petitioner is not committed to supplying the
information under the Act in the capacity of the Public Information
4
Officer and has violated the law and the Information Commissioner
was further pleased to impose penalty @ Rs.250 per day total
amounting to Rs.25,000/- and directed the respondent no.3 to
recover the same in five installments @ Rs.5,000/- per month from
the salary of the petitioner. Being aggrieved with the same, the
petitioner preferred review petition being Review Petition No.10 of
2013 and the same was disposed of vide order dated 23.12.2013 by
the Chief Information Commissioner stating that the Act does not
provide jurisdiction to review to the Commission of its own order by
the State Information Commission if any order is passed on merit
imposing penalty or otherwise.
3. It is evident from the factual aspect that the writ petitioner,
while holding the post of Additional Deputy Commissioner, was
issued with a show cause notice from the State Information
Commission before taking action under Section 20(1) of the Act,
2005. The occasion to issue such notice was the duty, which has
been casted as under the Act, 2005 in furnishing information to the
Information Seeker, the respondent no.4, has not been complied with
and finally the matter travelled upto the stage of second appeal in the
light of second proviso to Section 19 of the Right to Information Act,
2005.
4. The Information Commission has passed order casting liability
upon the writ petitioner of penalty to extent of Rs.25,000/-. The said
order is impugned in this writ petition.
5. The grounds have been taken on behalf of the petitioner that it
5
is a case where the writ petitioner during the relevant time, was not
the Public Information Officer, rather, his duty can only be said to the
extent of deemed Public Information Officer, since, the Information
Seeker has made an application before him for the purpose of
getting information, as required by him.
6. It has been contended that the moment, he has received the
application he, in the capacity of deemed Public Information Officer
and in order to provide information, as has been sought for by the
Information Seeker, has forwarded the said application before the
Circle Officer who actually was the Information Officer during the
relevant time, as per the notification issued to that effect by the
competent authority of the State Government.
7. The ground has been taken that even though, the petitioner
during the relevant time, was not the Public Information Officer but
he has been penalized in view of the power conferred under Section
20(1) of the Act, 2005 instead of also issuing notice to the Circle
Officer as to why the delay has been caused in supplying such
information to the Information Seeker.
8. The ground has also been taken by making reference of the
impugned order, wherein, if the Information Commission has made
reference that it is the accountability of the Public Information Officer,
i.e., the Circle officer of the concerned Circle who since has not
supplied the Information within the stipulated time as provided under
Section 5 of the Act, 2005, i.e., within the period of 30 days and as
such, the requirement to initiate the proceeding under Section 20(1)
6
of the Act, 2005 is there but the show cause notice was issued to the
present petitioner, who during the relevant time, at best can be said
to function as deemed Public Information Officer.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that
the said show cause notice was issued on presumption of the fact
that the present petitioner was also the ex-officio Public Information
Officer as per the mandate of the Act, 2005. But actually, the present
petitioner was not authorized to act as the Public Information Officer
and at best, he can be said to be deemed Public Information Officer
on the basis of the fact that the Information Seeker instead of making
application before the Circle Officer, the Public Information Officer,
has made application before the Additional Deputy Commissioner.
10. Learned counsel has also submitted that the State Information
Commission, in order to reach to the rightful conclusion ought to
have issued notice also to the Circle Officer for the purpose of
casting liability upon the erring official, as to who is the functionary,
has flouted the statutory command as provided under the Act, 2005.
11. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has
submitted that it is a case where the impugned order requires
interference.
12. While, on the other hand, Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, learned
counsel for the respondent-State Information Commission by
defending the impugned order has submitted that there is no error
therein, reason being that, the writ petitioner has never brought to
the notice of the State Information Commission that he was not the
7
Public Information Officer.
13. It has been contended that unless the State Information
Commission came to know about the status of the present writ
petitioner regarding the fact that he has not been notified to act as
the Public Information Officer, therefore, the order cannot be said to
suffer from an error in absence of the said fact which has not been
brought to the notice by the petitioner before the State Information
Commission, hence, the impugned order cannot be said to suffer
from an error and as such, it is not a case where the Writ of
Certiorari is to be issued.
14. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and
gone across the material available in the impugned order as also the
paper book.
15. This Court, before entering into the legality and propriety of the
impugned order, needs to refer the very object of the Right to
Information Act, 2005 and the relevant provisions which are
necessary to be referred herein for proper consideration of the lis.
16. The said Act came into effect on 15th June, 2005, and is
hereby published for general information. The Right to Information
Act is an Act to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to
information for citizens to secure access to information under the
control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and
accountability in the working of every public authority, the
constitution of a Central Information Commission and State
Information Commissions and for matters connected therewith or
8
incidental thereto.
17. Now, it requires to refer the relevant provisions of the Act,
which read as under:-
“5. Designation of Public Information Officers.-(1)
Every public authority shall, within one hundred days of the
enactment of this Act, designate as may officers as the Central
Public Information Officers or State Public Information
Officers, as the case may be, in all administrative units or
offices under it as may be necessary to provide information to
persons requesting for the information under this Act.
(2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section
(1), every public authority shall designate an officer, within
one hundred days of the enactment of this Act, at each sub-
divisional level or other sub-district level as a Central
Assistant Public Information Officer or a State Assistant
Public Information Officer, as the case may be, to receive the
applications for information or appeals under this Act for
forwarding the same forthwith to the Central Public
Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or
senior officer specified under sub-section (1) of section 19 or
the Central Information Commission or the State Information
Commission, as the case may be.
Provided that where an application for information or
appeal is given to a Central Assistant Public Information
Officer or a State Assistant Public Information Officer, as the
9
case may be, a period of five days shall be added in computing
the period for response specified under sub-section (1) of
(3) Every Central Public Information Officer or State
Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall deal with
requests from persons seeking information and render
reasonable assistance to the persons seeking such information.
(4) The Central Public Information Officer or State
Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may seek the
assistance of any other officer as he or she considers it
necessary for the proper discharge of his or her duties.
(5) Any officer, whose assistance has been sought
under sub-section (4), shall render all assistance to the
Central Public Information Officer or State Public
Information Officer, as the case may be, seeking his or her
assistance and for the purposes of any contravention of the
provisions of this Act, such other officer shall be treated as a
Central Public Information Officer or State Public
Information Officer, as the case may be.”
7. Disposal of request.-(1) Subject to the proviso to sub-
section (2) of section 5 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of
section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State
Public Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a
request under section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and
in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request,
10
either provide the information on payment of such fee as may
be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons
specified in sections 8 and 9:
Provided that where the information sought for concerns the
life or liberty of a person, the same shall be provided within
forty-eight hours of the receipt of the request.
(2) If the Central Public Information Officer or State Public
Information Officer, as the case may be, fails to give decision
on the request for information within the period specified
under sub-section (1), the Central Public Information Officer
or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall
be deemed to have refused the request.
(3) Where a decision is taken to provide the information on
payment of any further fee representing the cost of providing
the information, the Central Public Information Officer or
State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall
send an intimation to the person making the request, giving-
Xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
(4) Where access to the record or a part thereof is required to
be provided under this Act and the person to whom access is
to be provided is sensorily disabled, the Central Information
Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may
be, shall provide assistance to enable access to the information,
including providing such assistance as may be appropriate for
the inspection.
11
(5) Where access to information is to be provided in the
printed or in any electronic format, the applicant shall, subject
to the provisions of sub-section (6), pay such fee as may be
prescribed:
Provided that the fee prescribed under sub-section (1) of
section 6 and sub-sections (1) and (5) of section 7 shall be
reasonable and no such fee shall be charged from the persons
who are of below poverty line as may be determined by the
appropriate Government.
(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (5),
the person making request for the information shall be
provided the information free of charge where a public
authority fails to comply with the time limits specified in sub-
section (1).
(7) Before taking any decision under sub-section (1), the
Central Public Information Officer or State Public
Information Officer, as the case may be, shall take into
consideration the representation made by a third party under
(8) Where a request has been rejected under sub-section (1),
the Central Public Information Officer or State Public
Information Officer, as the case may be, shall communicate to
the person making the request,-
(i) the reasons for such rejection;
(ii) the period within which an appeal against such rejection
12
may be preferred; and
(iii) the particulars of the appellate authority.
(9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in
which, it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert
the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental
to the safety or preservation of the record in question.”
18. It is evident from the provision as referred hereinabove, i.e.,
Section 5 wherein under the definition part, the Public Information
Officer has been defined. The deemed definition of the Public
Information Officer has also to be extracted for the purpose of
objective implementation of the Act, 2005. Such object is paramount
in view of the fact that the purpose and object of the Act, 2005 is to
be achieved in its letter and spirit.
19. An application even if filed before any functionary higher than
the Public Information Officer, if the Information Seeker is having no
idea about the Public Information Officer since such notification is to
be issued by the competent authority of the State Government,
hence, it has been mandated under the Act, 2005 by fixing
accountability upon the official before whom any application if filed by
any Information Seeker, it is the bounden duty of such Officer
concerned to immediately forward the same before the Public
Information Officer so that the Public Information Officer be in a
position to exercise jurisdiction by supplying the documents or
information as have been sought by the Information Seeker.
20. The provision under Section 7 of the Act, 2005 is that in any
13
case the information to the Information Seeker is to be supplied
within the period of 30 days. The provision is also there that if the
information is not being supplied within the period of 30 days then
the Information Seeker is to prefer an appeal before the
Departmental Head said to be under the first proviso to Section 19 of
the Act, 2005 and even if the information is not being provided then
under the second provision to Section 19 said to be second appeal,
the jurisdiction of the State Information Commission is to be invoked.
21. The State Information Commission has been conferred with the
power as under Section 19 and Section 20. Section speaks about
the order which is to be passed by the Information Commission by
directing the Public authority to compensate the Information Seeker,
while, Section 20(1) confers power upon the Information Commission
to penalize economically maximum to the extent of Rs.25,000/- as
also to make recommendation under sub-section (2) of Section 20
before the Departmental Head to initiate the departmental
proceeding against the such P.I.O.
22. Section 20(1) provides that before taking such decision/action
by penalizing to the extent of Rs.25,000/- to the Public Information
Officer who if not provided the information within the stipulated time
then before inflicting such penalty, an opportunity said to be
reasonable in nature, is to be provided to the concerned Public
Information Officer whether the concerned officer has received the
application said to be deemed Public Information Officer or the actual
Public Information Officer who has been notified to act as the Public
14
Information Officer.
23. Adverting to the factual of the present case, herein the
application has been filed by the Information Seeker, the respondent
no.4 before the Additional Deputy Commissioner. It is the admitted
case of the present petitioner as also the learned counsel for the
State Information Commission that the Additional Deputy
Commissioner was not the Public Information Officer, rather, his duty
as per the statutory command as available under Section 5 of the
Act, 2005 is also to be dealt with by the Information Commission
under the implied meaning of the ‘Public Information Officer’ said to
be acted as a deemed Public Information Officer by virtue of the fact
that he has received the application by the Information Seeker.
24. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that
he, immediately after receipt of the application by the Information
Seeker, has forwarded the same to the Circle Officer who has been
notified to act as the Public Information Officer in addition to the
substantive post of Circle Officer. The document to that effect has
been appended.
25. The grievance of the present petitioner is that even though, he
is not discharging the duty of the Public Information Officer in the
capacity of holding the post of Addl. Deputy Commissioner, rather,
the Circle Officer has been notified to act as a Public Information
officer but even then, he has been penalized by invoking the power
conferred under Section 20(1) of the Act, 2005.
26. The further contention is that whatever may be the conclusion,
15
if the Information Commission has come to the conclusion that the
Information which was furnished to the Information Seeker by the
Circle Officer but with the delay, then, it was incumbent upon the
Information Commission also to issue notice to the Circle Officer in
addition to the notice issued to the Public Information Officer.
27. Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, learned counsel for the State Information
Commission, has argued that the fact about deemed Public
Information Officer has never been brought to the notice of the
Information Commission and as such, it is incorrect on the part of the
petitioner to take the ground that there is no consideration of the
point which has been raised by him in his defence before the
Information Commission.
28. This Court, on appreciation of the rival submission and in order
to assess the same, has come to the order impugned in order to see
as to whether the Information Commission, was having any idea
about the functioning in the capacity of the Public Information Officer
by the petitioner or not?
29. It is evident from the 2nd paragraph of the impugned order,
wherein, the Information Commission itself has referred that the
Information which was supplied by the Circle Officer with delay, on
which, the Information Seeker was not satisfied with the same and
that led the Information Commission in issuing notice under Section
20(1) of the Act, 2005.
30. The question is that when the Information Commission has
taken the reference of supplying the information which admittedly
16
has been supplied by the Circle Officer, then notice also ought to
have been issued to the Circle Officer in order to come to the
conclusion as to who is at default in not following the statutory
mandate as provided under Section 7 of the Act, 2005.
31. This Court, is conscious that the statutory command as
provided under Section 7, in any circumstances, is to be followed
and for the aforesaid purpose by way of deterrent measure, the
provision has been made under Sections 19 and 20(1) (2) of the Act,
2005. But, that does not mean that the Information Commission
without applying the mind will issue notice to any of the officials
without knowing the fact that who actually was conferred with the
power to act as a Public Information Officer by virtue of issuance of
notification by the State Government.
32. The fact about Circle Officer being the Public Information
Officer is not in dispute as also the fact about duty which was
assigned to the petitioner, in the capacity of posting as the Addl.
Deputy Commissioner, and in that capacity, he was the recipient of
the complaint for the purpose of supply of information, has also not
been disputed. Therefore, this Court is of the view that for the
purpose of achieving the object of the Act and to maintain the
provision of Section 20(1) by way of deterrent measure, a notice
ought to have been issued to the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, the
present petitioner and the Circle Officer in order to assess that who
is at fault.
33. But, herein, no notice was issued to the Circle Officer, even
17
though, the Information Commission has referred that the
Information which has been furnished, was not up to the satisfaction
of the Information Seeker and as such, a notice is required to be
issued to the Circle Officer.
34. The Information Commission was well conscious on the basis
of the document available on record that it is the Circle Officer who
has supplied the relevant information, as would be evident from the
communication dated 22.08.2013 addressed to the under Secretary
(Incharge), State Information Commission, Jharkhand, Ranchi.
35. The aforesaid fact of supply of relevant information by the
Circle Officer was well available in the record but even then the
Circle Officer has not been issued notice.
36. This Court, in view thereof needs to refer the principle which is
to be exercised in issuance of Writ of Certiorari, as has been laid
down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Syed Yakoob vs.
K.S. Radhakrishnan and Ors., A.I.R. 1964 Supreme Court 477.
The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is being reproduced
hereinbelow:
“The question about the limits of the jurisdiction of High
Courts in issuing a writ of certiorari under Art. 226 has
been frequently considered by this Court and the true
legal position in that behalf is no longer in doubt. A writ of
certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of
jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals :
these are cases where orders are passed by inferior
courts or tribunals without jurisdiction, or is in excess of
it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction. A writ
can similarly be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction
conferred on it, the Court or Tribunal Acts illegally or
improperly, as for instance, it decides a question without
giving an opportunity to be heard to the party affected by18
the order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing
with the dispute is opposed to principles of natural
justice. There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction
to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction
and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an
appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that
findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal
as result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be
reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of
law which is apparent on the face of the record can be
corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however
grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact
recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be
issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the
tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and
material evidence, or had erroneously admitted
inadmissible evidence which has influenced the
impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based
on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of
law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In
dealing with this category of cases, however, we must
always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the
Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ
of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material
evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or
inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The
adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and
the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the
said points cannot be agitated before a writ Court. It is
within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the
High Courts under Art. 226 to issue a writ of certiorari
can be legitimately exercised (vide Hari Vishnu Kamath
v. Ahmad Ishaque, 1955-1 SCR 1104 : ((S) AIR 1955 SC
233); Nagendra Nath v. Commr. Of Hills Division, 1958
SCR 1240 : (AIR 1958 SC 398) and Kaushalya Devi v.
Bachittar Singh, AIR 1960 SC 1168.
37. In Hari Vishnu Kamath vs. Ahmad Ishaque and Ors., AIR
1955 Supreme Court 233, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as
hereunder in paragraph no.21:
“………….to the character and scope of the writ of
certiorari and the conditions under which it can be
issued, the following propositions may be taken as
established: (1) Certiorari will be issued for correcting
errors of jurisdiction, as when an inferior Court or19
Tribunal acts without jurisdiction or in excess of it, or fails
to exercise it. (2) Writ of certiorari will also be issued
when the Court or Tribunal acts illegally in the exercise of
its undoubted jurisdiction, as when it decides without
giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard, or
violates the principles of natural justice. (3) The Court
issuing a writ of certiorari acts in exercise of a
supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction. One
consequence of this is that the Court will not review
findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal
even if they be erroneous. This is on the principle that a
Court which has jurisdiction over a subject-matter has
jurisdiction to decide wrong as well as right, and when
the Legislature does not choose to confer a right of
appeal against that decision, it would be defeating its
purpose and policy, if a superior Court were to rehear the
case on the evidence and substitute its own findings in
certiorari.”
38. In Sawarn Singh and Anr. vs. State of Punjab and Ors.,
(1976) 2 SCC 868 their Lordships, while discussing the power of writ
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of
certiorari, has been pleased to hold at paragraph nos.12 and 13 as
hereunder:
“12. Before dealing with the contentions canvassed, it
will be useful to notice the general principles indicating
the limits of the jurisdiction of the certiorari jurisdiction
can be exercised only for correcting errors of jurisdiction
committed by inferior courts or tribunals. A writ of
certiorari can be issued only in the exercise of
supervisory jurisdiction which is different from appellate
jurisdiction. The Court exercising special jurisdiction
under Article 226 is not entitled to act as an appellate
Court. As was pointed out by this Court in Syed Yakoob’s
case (supra)
13. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by an inferior
tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued only if in
recording such a finding, the tribunal has acted on
evidence which is legally inadmissible, or has refused to
admit admissible evidence, or if the finding is not
supported by any evidence at all, because in such cases
the error amounts to an error of law. The writ jurisdiction
extends only to cases where orders are passed by
inferior courts or tribunals in excess of their jurisdiction or20
as a result of their refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested
in them or they act illegally or improperly in the exercise
of their jurisdiction causing grave miscarriage of justice.”
39. This Court, after taking into consideration the fact as discussed
hereinabove in entirety and as per the settled position of law,
therefore, is of the view that the impugned order requires
interference.
40. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 26.08.2013 passed in
Appeal No.778 of 2012 by the Information Commissioner, Jharkhand
State Information Commission is hereby, quashed and set aside.
41. In the result, the instant writ petition stands allowed.
42. The matter is remitted before the State Information
Commission to pass fresh order after issuance of notice upon the
concerned Addl. Deputy Commissioner and the Circle Officer.
43. This Court has not expressed anything on merit regarding the
accountability either of the present petitioner or the Circle Officer,
rather, the Information Commission based upon the record, is to take
its independent decision.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
Rohit/-A.F.R.
21