^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVIS10N BENCH Coram : HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Appellant Petitioner Writ Appeal No. 1S5 of 2009 Gyandutt Mishra, S/o. Late Shri Prithvipal Mishra, aged about 65 years, R/o. Brindavan Cotony, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) Versys Respondents 1. Chief Information Commissioner (Right to Information), Bhopal (M.P.) 2. Principal Secretary, Department of Tribal Welfare, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (M.P.) 3. Principal Secretary; Department of Tribal Welfare, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 4. Upper Secretary, Department of Tribal Welfare, Bhopai (M.P.) 5. Commissioner, Department of Tribal Welfare, Bhopal (M.P.) 6. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Secretary, Department of Tribal Welfare, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Writ Appeal under Sectton 1W ofthe Chhattisaarh Hiah Court (ADpeal to Division Benchl Act. 2006 Presenf: Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, leamed counsel for the appellant. Shri V.V.S. Murthy, learned Deputy Advocate General with Shri Akhil Agrawal, learned Panei Lawyer for respondents No. 3 & 6. JUDGMENT (24th June, 2808) "-4^\ f ^_" % a.. -<"./' The following judgment of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J.: Learned counsel for the parties are heard on admission. 2. Appellant Gyandutt Mishra has flled this writ appeal against the impugned order dated 13-04-2009, passed in W.P.(C) No.2597/2008; whereby the leamed Single Judge has declined to entertain the writ petition on the ground that the High Court of Chhattisgarh has no jurisdiction in the matter. 3. Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, leamed counsel for the appellant could not dispute that the petitioner filed the application under Right to Information Act at Bhopal in the State of Madhya Pradesh and the Appeal and Second Appeal under the Act were also filed at Bhopal inthe State ofMadhya Pradesh. 4. In this view of the matter, we are satisfied that no part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Chhattisgarh and as such tearned Single Judge has rightly declined to entertain the writ petition. We, therefore, do not find any ground for interference in this writ appeal. 5. The writ appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- ChiefJustic? p.' fl Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge nimmi