The Times of India: Patna: Wednesday, 10 December 2025.
Refusing to quash a
penalty of Rs25,000 imposed by the state information commissioner (SIC) on a former
deputy collector land reform (DCLR) of the state capital (Sadar), the Patna
high court directed the erring officer to deposit the fine amount within next
four weeks.
The court also ordered that failure to deposit the fine within stipulated time would make the officer liable for an additional fine of Rs5,000.
A single bench of Justice Rajiv Roy while disposing of a decade-old writ petition filed by one Sudhanshu Kumar Chaubey, passed this verdict on Dec 4 which came into public domain after being uploaded on HC website on Tuesday.
Petitioner’s counsel Pawan Kumar argued that his client had wrongly been imposed with a fine allegedly for not furnishing information related to disposal of mutation cases in a circle of state capital, as sought by one Surendra Prasad Yadav under the provisions of Right to Information Act (RTI) .
The requisite information was provided at a late stage when Surendra had already appealed before the SIC.
SIC counsel Binita Singh submitted that Sudhanshu was given an opportunity give an explanation before being awarded a penalty. Yet the erring officer gave no reply for next 11 months till he was transferred to another department.
The court found that the erring officer had behaved in a non-professional manner by not replying to the commission within time frame.
The court also ordered that failure to deposit the fine within stipulated time would make the officer liable for an additional fine of Rs5,000.
A single bench of Justice Rajiv Roy while disposing of a decade-old writ petition filed by one Sudhanshu Kumar Chaubey, passed this verdict on Dec 4 which came into public domain after being uploaded on HC website on Tuesday.
Petitioner’s counsel Pawan Kumar argued that his client had wrongly been imposed with a fine allegedly for not furnishing information related to disposal of mutation cases in a circle of state capital, as sought by one Surendra Prasad Yadav under the provisions of Right to Information Act (RTI) .
The requisite information was provided at a late stage when Surendra had already appealed before the SIC.
SIC counsel Binita Singh submitted that Sudhanshu was given an opportunity give an explanation before being awarded a penalty. Yet the erring officer gave no reply for next 11 months till he was transferred to another department.
The court found that the erring officer had behaved in a non-professional manner by not replying to the commission within time frame.
.JPG)
.JPG)
