IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.719 of 2009 RAM SAGAR PRASAD SINGH , SON OF LATE SHEO SHANKAR PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF 304 A, MAHA LAXMI APARTMENT, EAST BORING CANAL ROAD, P.S. BUDHA COLONY, DISTRICT- PATNA, THE THEN SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, PATNA, AT PRESENT DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, LAKHISARAI, DISTRICT- LAKHISARAI…………………………………….. APPELLANT Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER, STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, 4TH FLOOR, SUCHANA BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 3. THE SECRETARY-CUM-REGISTRAR, STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, 4TH FLOOR, SUCHANA BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, LAKHISARAI 5. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, PATNA. 6. MISS. PRABHA KUMARI, DAUGHTER OF SRI KEDAR PRASAD SAHU, RESIDENT OF OFFICERS’ HOSTEL, SUIT NO.3, ELECTRICITY BOARD COLONY, RAJBANSHI NAGAR, P.S. SHASTRI NAGAR, TOWN AND DISTRICT- PATNA..RESPTS. ----------- 6 17-9-2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel appearing for the Information Commission. 2. Notice was issued to respondent no.6 but in spite of service of notice she has not appeared. 3. By an order dated 3rd. February, 2009 the respondent no.2, the Information Commissioner imposed a fine of Rs.25,000/- upon the appellant on the ground that no good reasons were supplied by the 2 appellant to believe the information he had granted for query made by respondent no.6. Against such order of fine the appellant preferred C.W.J.C. No. 5649 of 2009 which has been dismissed by the order under appeal dated 4-5-2009. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in connection with appointment to the post of primary teacher under Patna Municipal Corporation, the respondent no.6 was required to submit her application to the District Superintendent of Education, Patna, the post which the appellant was holding at the relevant time but she submitted her application wrongly before the District Education Officer, Patna. As a result ultimately her candidature was cancelled and a writ petition preferred by her was also dismissed. In the first round the same very information was supplied by the appellant that the application claimed to have been filed by respondent no.6 was not available in his office and has not been 3 received there. 5. It appears that subsequently respondent no.6 preferred a complaint in the matter before the Chief Minister which was referred to the department of Huma Resources,Government of Bihar. Respondent no.6 again sought information on 16-5-2008 as to what action had been taken upon her complaint made to the Chief Minister. The query was directed against the department but in turn, the task of giving a reply appears to have been entrusted to the appellant and he again gave similar reply . 6. Being not satisfied with the reply given by the appellant, respondent no.6 approached the State Information Commission which looked into the matter and ultimately passed the order dated 3-2- 2009 whereby for belated supply of information, the successor in office of the appellant was let off because respondent no.6 was satisfied that she had received the information in time but verbally, from the 4 successor in office of the appellant. So far as appellant is concerned, after considering his explanation, respondent no.2 felt dissatisfied on the ground of lack of good reasons as to why respondent no.6 had been shown to be successful in the selection process when she had not applied before the proper authority, the District Superintendent of Education. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that this matter was looked into by this Court in the first round of litigation and the respondent no.6 had lost because though the initial scrutiny was in her favour on her representation that she had with her proof of having filed her application in the office of District Superintendent of Education, but subsequently no such proof could be produced by her and, therefore, her application had to be treated as invalid. 8. Having heard the parties, we find that the reply given by the appellant as Information officer 5 was consistent with what he had given earlier only on the ground that he could not give good reasons to support his reply, he appears to have been punished as if he was required to prove his innocence. We do not find any justifiable material to hold that the appellant had submitted any false or misleading information. For proving such allegations the respondent no.6 had to provide materials and proof. Such burden of proof has not been discharged by her. 9. In that view of the matter, the order of the learned single judge is set aside and the impugned order dated 3-2-2009 challenged in C.W.J.C. No. 5649 of 2009 is quashed. As a result the writ petition and the appeal stand allowed. There will be no order as to costs. Naresh ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) ( Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J)