Jharkhand HC refuses to penalise PIO in RTI case, directs litigant to pursue land dispute separately
Ranchi, June 22: The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by a Bokaro resident seeking action against a Public Information…
Ranchi, June 22: The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by a Bokaro resident seeking action against a Public Information Officer (PIO) under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, holding that there was no evidence to establish that the requested document was deliberately withheld or destroyed.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar upheld an earlier order of a single judge and observed that a public authority cannot be compelled to provide information that is not available in its records.
RTI Request Linked to Land Dispute
The appeal was filed by Hari Nandan Singh, who sought copies of reports allegedly submitted by the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Chas, to district authorities in connection with a complaint he had made before the Jharkhand Lokayukta.
While one report sought under the RTI application was supplied, another document linked to a communication dated April 6, 2017 could not be furnished. The appellant maintained that the letter had been received in the SDO’s office and argued that the information was being withheld.
ALSO READ: Jharkhand HC reinstates revenue official, quashes compulsory retirement order
High Court Ordered Independent Inquiry
During the appeal proceedings, the court took note of a document produced by the appellant indicating that the communication may have been received in the confidential section of the SDO’s office. Concerned by the issue, the Division Bench directed the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, to conduct an inquiry and place the facts before the court.
The inquiry involved examination of official records and statements of serving and former employees of both the Deputy Development Commissioner’s office and the SDO’s office. However, the inquiry could not conclusively establish whether the disputed letter had actually been received by the SDO’s office. Some officials had retired or died, limiting verification efforts.
No Evidence of Deliberate Suppression
After considering the inquiry report, the court observed that the allegation that the document had been destroyed or intentionally withheld remained unproven. Since the very receipt of the letter in the SDO’s office could not be established, the bench held that penal action against the Public Information Officer would be unjustified.
The judges also noted that information sought under another part of the RTI application had been supplied within the prescribed period, which indicated the bona fides of the concerned officer.
Court Points to Underlying Land Ownership Dispute
The inquiry further revealed that the appellant’s grievance arose from an alleged encroachment on his land by an adjoining raiyat. Multiple measurements of the property had been conducted over the years, but demarcation could not be completed because the sale deed did not contain adequate boundary details.
The court noted that the core issue was essentially a dispute relating to land ownership and boundaries, matters that fall outside the scope of RTI proceedings and administrative authorities.
Liberty Granted to Seek Appropriate Remedy
Dismissing the appeal, the Division Bench held that there was no reason to interfere with the earlier order of the single judge or the decision of the Jharkhand State Information Commission. However, it granted the appellant liberty to pursue appropriate legal remedies before a competent court in relation to the land dispute.
