*DEFAMATION CASE** (I.C.C No. 3441 of 2013) AGAINST **SRI JAGADANAND, ODISHA INFORMATION COMMISSIONER FILED IN SDJM COURT, BHUBANESWAR BY SMT. RAJALAXMIJun 5 1 of 1View Source
DEFAMATION CASE (I.C.C No. 3441 of 2013) AGAINST SRI JAGADANAND, ODISHA INFORMATION COMMISSIONER FILED IN SDJM COURT, BHUBANESWAR BY SMT. RAJALAXMI DAS, WIFE OF JAYANTA KUMAR DAS, RTI-COMPLAINANT
On dated 04.6.2013, Smt. Rajalaxmi Das, my wife has filed a Defamation Case against Sri Jagadanand (Mohanty), State Information Commissioner in Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhubaneswar, capital of Odisha with prayer to punish him(Under Section 499 and 500 I.P.C) for using derogatory and defamatory languages in his decision (Second Appeal case No.- 439/2011 dated 09th Feb 2012). In her petition, Smt. Rajalaxmi Das has mentioned that Sri Jagadanand (Mohanty), SIC has illegally and without any relevance reflected the version of PIO in the order that her husband(me) is involved in fraudulent land deal with many persons and was arrested in criminal case. This decision of Sri Jagadanand (Mohanty) is illegal, perverse and non-application of judicial mind. Because without hearing the case from Appellant Sri Jayanta Kumar Das, Sri Jagadanand (Mohanty)recorded the statement of the erring PIO and the same was also reflected on the order sheet which does not come within the domain of the commission. Sri Jagadanand (Mohanty) has passed the order with an oblique motive to malign the image of her husband.
On 1.8.2011, I had filed an RTI Application to the PIO, office of Health and Family Welfare , Govt. of Odisha seeking information about copy of property statement of Dr. Sanat Mohapatra. On refusal, I approached the First Appellate Authority who dropped the case without hearing because I (the appellant) was not present during hearing. Then I filed second appeal S.A. No. 439/2011 before the Odisha Information Commission. Sri Jagadanand (Mohanty) did two
blunder mistakes during hearing:-
i) Mistake No.1 heard the case on 09.2.2012 and remanded the case again to the First Appellate Authority without ensuring information and without penalizing the Public Information Officer of Health & Family Welfare department as per Section 20 of RTI Act 2005 for not providing information to me.
ii) Mistake No.2 Sri Jagadanand (Mohanty), in his decision mentioned the objectionable version of the PIO which has damaged my social dignity.
This is one of many cases where Sri Jagadanand (Mohanty)always reflected berry acrimonious attitude to the information- seekers, RTI-Complainants during hearing in the court room. This case will be heard very soon.
SRI JAYANTA KUMAR DAS, SIDHAMAHABIR PATANA, PURI,9861770749(M)
Documents in Attachment for reference:-
1. RTI Application dt. 01st Aug 2011 (Waiting for information since 675 days!!!),
2. Decision of First Appellate authority (Case was dropped as I was Absent during hearing!!!),
3. Decision of OIC Sri Jagadananda, Second Appeal No. 439/2011(in which he has used defamatory languages to defame the Appellant knowingly instead of Penalizing the PIO!!!),
4. My Letter dated 11.2.2012 to OIC Sri Jagadananda,
5. My Letter dated 19.5.2012 to OIC Sri Jagadananda (asking about the defamatory language used by him in his decision),
Get your own FREE website and domain with business email solutions, click here