IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16026 of 2009 1. Krishna Kumar S/O Lakshmi Narayan Sah Vill & P.O. Rampur Diara, P.S. Maner, Distt. Patna Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Director General Of Police Bihar, Patna 3. Inspector General Of Police (Administration) Bihar, Patna 4. Superintendent Of Police Patna 5. Chief Information Commissioner Bihar, Patna ----------- 11. 18.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The writ application raises two separate questions for consideration. In so far as the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Sub- Inspector under Advertisement No. 2 of 1993 is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to persuade the Court to interfere in view of the order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 10609 of 1994/10769 of 1994 disposed on 8.10.1996 in which the petitioner was also an unsuccessful party. The judgment has not been questioned and has attained finality. The writ application has no merit to that extent. But the petitioner has raised another important issue. It is submitted that he belongs to the reserve category. An imposter with his name and parentage has been appointed in general category. 2 He moved under the Right to Information Act, the respondents furnished him a reply on 18.3.2009 that no records were available with regard to him in the department but that a person in his name and his parentage having another Roll number has been appointed in the general category. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is indicative of something being amiss and malpractice in appointments. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit and a supplementary counter affidavit affirmed by the D.I.G. of Police (Personnel). In both the affidavits their stand is that the information furnished to him under the Right to Information Act is not to the knowledge and awareness of the respondents and as to how it came to be furnished. That there was no candidate with the same name and father’s name as the petitioner in service. The matter relates to appointments in the Police department. The Court would have expected more investigative capability by the respondents keeping in mind the nature of their duties. They could have at least made proper enquiries with regard to the manner and method by which information was furnished under the R.T.I. Act. If it 3 was a mere communication directly to the petitioner the matter may be different. But once the information has been furnished as an obligation and a statutory duty to an authority exercising statutory powers, the matter becomes different. Even thereafter the respondents could have placed materials of the investigation done by them and their satisfaction that information was wrongly furnished under the Right to Information Act. They could also have disclosed if there was any person with the same name and parentage in the police office and how it was so the identity was different. The matter is referred to the Director General of Police, Bihar, for an appropriate enquiry into the matter and the passing of a reasoned and speaking order discussing all aspects of the matter under the Right to Information Act, the stand taken in the counter affidavit and the identity of the person alleged to be appointed with the same name and parentage as the petitioner. Let the same be complied with within a maximum period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Naturally if the Director General of Police is so satisfied of any 4 malpractice he shall take necessary consequential action as he may deem fit and proper. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)