Ratnesh Kumar Singh v. The State Information Commission And ORS

Patna High Court CWJC No.7908 of 2015 dt.17-07-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7908 of 2015 =================================================== Ratnesh Kumar Singh, Son of Late Shyam Bihar Singh, Prashya Sadan, Riding Road, P.S.-Airport, Sheikhpura, Patna .... .... Petitioner.

Versus

1. The State Information Commission through its Registrar, 4th Floor, Soochna Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

2. Ashok Kumar Sinha, State Chief Information Commissioner 4th Floor, Soochna Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

3. The Registrar, the State Information Commission, 4th Floor, Soochna Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

4. The State of Bihar through its Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.

5. The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.

6. The Department of General Administration through its Principal Secretary, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.

7. Bihar Public Service Commission through its Secretary, Bailey Road, Patna.

8. The Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, Bailey Road, Patna.

9. The Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, Bailey Road, Patna.

10. Devbrat Mishra, Son of Late Baidyanath Mishra, Resident of Village & P.S.-Chainpur, District-Madhubani.

.... .... Respondents.

================================================== = Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. R.K. Verma, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Singh, Advocate.

For the Respondent/s : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate Ms. Binita Singh, Advocate.

Advocate for B.P.S.C.: Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate. For the State : Ms. Kumari Amrita, G.P.-10 ================================================== = CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 17-07-2015

Patna High Court CWJC No.7908 of 2015 dt.17-07-2015 After a detailed hearing, this Court comes to a considered opinion that introspection is required even by the members of the Commission because they are no longer bureaucrats but quasi judicial authorities.

Since from the reading of the order, in question, it is not evident that any kind of bar has been created for any counsel to render assistance it is not required to be interfered with, but the Court will surely not allow any P.I.O. who has failed to assist or respond to the directives of the Commission to hide behind a counsel. The writ application is disposed of with the observation as above.

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.) Kamlesh U