IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7784 of 2011 BHOLA GIRI, AGED ABOUT- 54 YEARS, SON OF LATE JAI KSIRHNA GIRI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- GARAHIYA BAZAR, POLICE STATION-CHAUTARAWA, DISTRICT-WEST CHAMPARAN POSTED AS MARKETING OFFICER, BLOCK BHAGWANPUR, VAISHALI ….PETITIONER. VERSUS 1. THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, THROUGH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, HAVING OFFICE AT SUCHNA BHAWAN, (4TH FLOOR) BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 2. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY CUM JOINT REGISTRAR, STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION HAVING OFFICE AT SUCHNA BHAWAN, (4TH FLOOR) BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 3. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FOOD, SUPPLY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FOOD, SUPPLY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION DEPARTMENT , GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. …..RESPONDENTS. For the petitioner: Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha, Advocate. For the respondent no. 1 and 2:Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Binita Singh, Advocate. For the State: Mr. S. Raza Ahmad, Sr. Advocate, A.A.G.-IX Mr. Vishwambhar Prasad, AC to A.A.G-IX. ----------- 03. 24.06.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. Petitioner was posted as a Block Supply Officer at Masauri in the year 2008-09. The petition for information under Right To Information Act was filed by a citizen on 13.10.2008 before him. Since petitioner was notified as the public information Officer, it was incumbent upon him to supply those informations. It is the stand of the petitioner that substantial portion of the information was already supplied which was available with him but the complainant moved the State 2 Information Commission making a grievance that full information was not being furnished or supplied by the petitioner. This made him culpable under the Right to Information Act 2006. From various orders which was passed by the State Information Commission which has been annexed as Annexure-6 series. It is evident that the matter was heard over a prolonged stretch of time and only when the Commission was not satisfied that the petitioner had shouldered the responsibility of the public Information Officer they decided to impose fine upon him. 3. The first submission on behalf of the petitioner is that he was made a victim of circumstance, in the sense that the petitioner subsequently came to be transferred from the post to Bhagwanpur in the District of Vaishali on 30.12.2009 and after that he lost controls of the office in question and it was not possible for him to furnish the left over information. He was in constant touch with his successor to ensure the left over information was given. The other contention is that the information seeker was seeking more and more information and it was not possible for this petitioner to keep supplying information at his beck and call. Information was sought on 13.10.2008 the final order of the Commission imposing fine has been passed in March 2011, which is a long gap of time when the dispute with regard to non-furnishing of information originated. Petitioner 3 was posted at the place in question and remained in charge for more than 15 months. It is only thereafter that he was transferred to the District of Vaishali at Bhagwanpur. There is nothing to indicate from the materials that information was so cumbersome or there was impossibility of furnishing those materials from the period or time when it was demanded till the petitioner came to be transferred. Obviously there was reluctance or lethargy on the post of the petitioner on the issue. The Commission had been indulgent in giving more and more time to comply with the direction of furnishing the information demanded by one Md. Nasimuddin Malick but there was failure within the parameters and time frame fixed under the Act. The explanations which has been given by the petitioner does not absolve him of the liability as per law. On this aspect the law is rather strict. Mere taking a plea that there was impossibility of performance in furnishing information may not absolve the petitioner. Transfer of the petitioner, as already noted above, was effected after more than 15 months of the original requisition which was filed seeking information. Petitioner thereafter submits that he had no intent to defy the commission or not furnish the information which was demanded. If the required machinery was not there he ought not to have been saddled with such a heavy fine of Rs. 25,000/-, more so in absence of mens rea. There is no concept of mens rea provided for in the 4 legislation as per the provisions on this Court. It has nothing to do with intent. The public information officer has been saddled with a job which are mandatory. Failure has consequences as would be evident from the provisions of the Act in question. In fact there is not much discretion on this score. However, since the departmental proceeding has also been initiated against the petitioner for a similar kind of misconduct at the direction of the State Information commission, the petitioner may establish his bona fide before the disciplinary authority and if there was substantial compliance with impossibility of performance in compliance. If the disciplinary authority is satisfied on this Court, may be the fine which has been imposed upon the petitioner by the State Information Commission may be considered to be waived. But that is contingent to above. The application stands disposed of with the above observation in this regard. It is clarified that the observation of the court on the issue has been made with regard to the order of fine. So far as the disciplinary proceeding is concerned that issue will be dealt with on its own merit dependent on the kind of evidence which may come during the proceeding. Devendra/ ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)