AMENDEND PETITITON !NTHEHJGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATnSGARHATBILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH1 WRIT PETITION(C) N0.7096; (2007 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Madhim Sai, Paikara, Sto Shri Sudhan Sai Paikara, aged about 53years, R/o village Pandrapani, Police Station Fershabahar, Tahsil Kunkuri, District Jashpur, (Chhattisgarh). VERSUS 1. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Pandhayat Fershabahsr, Tahsil Kunkuri, DisfrictJashpurfChhatBsgrh) 2. Chief Executive Cfficer Zeela Panchayat Jashpur, Tahsil Jashpur, District, (Chhattisgarh). 3. State Information Commissioner Chhattisgarh Raipur (Chhattisgarh). WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226f227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA -/<-: ----t^ I flXI-HC-22 an^r^iT K-U^ SfS^f sb^i^ <itia 'S'ST ^(•'iHti, ®Ti1+i'is,(«i<ni.Htj,< Wq?lT ailiqi^.^.^.y^^ an^I ^R'IWHf??! SB : Hon'ble Shri Maninara mohan 05-04-2011 Shri J.S.Baraik, counsel for th^ Heard on admission. This petition is directed again^t passed bv the Chhattisgarh informatl aggrieved by the order passed by appeliate authority. Learned counsei for the petit| appiied for suppiy of certain informatiijin relevant rules and procedures for art Learned counsel for the petitioner su!|i by the petitioner was not finaiiy preferred before the first aDDeiiate di with a direction to the respondent Ni|>. Th6 respondent No.1 suppiied hirfi petitioner had preferred appea! befor( information has not been provided to t action be initiated against the petitioner further submits that though to the information Commissioner,| information suppiied to him, was not Commissioner finally disposed ofl] information has been provided to himl The order passed by the information with regard to ruies was me petitioner, ror wam or proper conc$rnea '*l^firt''fl-) illlcif'? ftl?t <fat<;i< ^3ifi<ra3n^r Shrlvastava. J. petitioner. order dated 28/09/07 (Annexure P/11) lon Commission. The petitioner is also the information Commissioner and the joner submitted that the petitioner had and had also demanded disciosure of (pointment of Shiksha Karmi, Grade-iil. jimits that initialiy, the information sought tiisciosed. Thereaner, an appeal was luthority which was nnaily disposed off >.1 to provide the iist of the candidates. the information but, belatediy. The ^ the appeliate authority stating that the the petitioner timeiy and therefore, some ^rned ofricer. Learned counset for the jthe petitioner preferred a second appeai the petitioner's grievance that the broperly considered and the information the appeai by recording that the Iwithin time. appeilate authority shows that the <|lirected to be supplied by recording that couid not make his speciflc fitet unflerstanaing t^ss yvi'\ "XI-HC-22 •'y ss':—'- an^T^Bi fera'an^r sh^\^ -yTlfl !<"- Deepti •s^•^SPVvPf, "g^TWre, fawi+iy WTISIT 9lKI<=h ll(i|ch K)-P.(<?)>-o-'!^4j6^' 20 OT^T^gTWdfel -3- dertosit prayer that he soug'nt disclosure of] that on the date. the information avaiiabie. Therefore, the same be of the merit list. Thereafter, the it 13/06707 (Annexure P/7) to information and upon deposit of thej (Annexure P/8), necessary informafp petitioner. The arievance of the to him within the time stipulated,| petitioner has not assailed the ordej records finding that the petitioner hiit not make clear prayer as to whethej appeal, a direction was issued and to the petinoner. ! ne pelitioner coi| peltitioner niijiseir. submitted application for informatioil cireulnstances. selection was not compieted bv thatl in view of the aforesaid submission of learned counsel rorl suppiied to him within the time stipL|iated The appeliate authority has rightii petitioner was suppiied information. cbWfd^-f t|WciT'3 fe^ <[»lt$i< '^3lf?OT 311^1 Ithe entire rules. It was further ooserved Iwas sought. the setection iist was not iupplied to the petitioner after pubiication >etitioner was reauired vide letter dated necessary charges for providing requisite fee vide memo dated 18/06/07 |on and documents were suppiied to the that information was not supplied does not appear to be correct. The passed by the appeiiate authority which iitiself, for want of proper knowledge cou!d he wanted complete set of ruies. in the thereafter, the copy of ruies were suppiied lld not dispute that the date on which he I, no merit list was availabie because the ;Eime. am not inciined to accept the the Detitioner that information was not under the Right to information Act. closed the matter observina that the Vvith the aforesaid observatioji, the petition is finaily disposed off. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge ['tft^1fe^ T-1.