^G- 1 IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT 0V C.G. AT BILASPUR Wnt Anpeal No. of2010 s^^n » APPELLANT/ Petitioner Janpad Panchayat Magarlod, through the Chief Executive Officer, District-Dhamtari (C.G.) VERSUS L^^ ^b' ..••'r>?:IQ'..••" w L ^ . Ly-^ .;-••" . •w•". ^ RESPONDENTS :1. Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Raipur through the Secretary, Meera Datar Road, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 2. ZUa Panchayat Dhamtari, through the Chief Executive Officer, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) 3. Hemant Dewangan, aged about 40 years, S/o Mani Ram, R/o ViUage Gadadih, Post-Dhaurabhatha, Tahsil-Magarlod, District-Dhamtari (C.G.) WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2 SUB-SECTION (11 OF THE CHHAmSGARH HIGH COURTS (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCHl ACT. 2006 ;(^ $2> HISHCOUItF<»P®ttHMiriSe»iUlATGtH.ASPUR D; Bs Hon'bleiShriI.M. Oudtlusi. Hbn'bl SBiiri PraislianliiKumarMishra. WritABDealNo.1.09/2010 Appellant; Janpad Pancliayat (•lagarlod^ through the Ghfef Executive0fficer,DistrictDhaintai1;(C.G). .v&':'.:.'.' :':;;- :' '.'^ Respontteht Chhattlsgarh StateInformationCommission and two others. ADDearance: Mr. PrateekSharma, counsel fortheappellant. Mr. Vinay Harit, Depyty Advocate General wlth Mr. AjU Singh, Panel Lawyer, respondent no.l. 1ffrM ABpeal^undiBRSeetiiim^^^lt) ofth^^ ^C6urE'3@!iDoe^stasUii^Kil BSntS^^kl:^!M<W^^i?^ .'s "-^'; ^. ^KW^QSSEVt • ; :: :".:: •.'"- ' ::' •: :: C29.04.2010) l^rl.M.QUbDUSl.J tieard.-''..; . .•:- / -: . • , , • • Thls appeal has toeen filed agalnst the impugned order dated 19.04.2010 passectbythelearned5(ngle3udgeinW.P.(C) No.l777/20iadismissingthewritpetition. Though thewrrtapReHant tias raised so mahyGontenttons beftore the learned Slngle Judge in thewrlt petltion in I • • '•".'•.••..'..•:—•;•.••• :• " : ••' .:•• ::'. •'. • ' • : ' . • . • •• • "•: constitution of the Informatlon Commissioh but br( a quiery in this wnt appeal by us, learned Deputy Adyocate General has produced the notiflcation dated ()6.09.2008 sttOWing the appointment ofShrl Anil Joshion the post ofState Information Commissioner, therefore, the Chitf Inftermation iCoi'rimissi6rier andthe Irifbrmatlon Cominissionerhavebeenappointeclandjt ^ cannot be said that the State Information Commlssion has ngt beenconstltutedproperty. ^ However, the order assailed was the Interim order pass^ct bytheChiefInfarmationCommlssionerclated 10.03.2010 by whlch he has fixed ft>r hearlng of Appeal No.1201/2009 on 21.05.2010 butpassedtheimpugnedtntenmofderpermitting respondent no.3 Hemant Dewangari to inspect the recordand< gtve hlm fnfbrination free of cost upto Rs.lOO/- withtn 15 days from the date of order. If the inforniation sought by respondent no.3 would be supplled under the Interim onder, there WQuld nothlng remaln to be acUudlcated by the State Information Commission eind itwlll be a futlle exercise to decide the appeal. Therefore, weare of the dpjnlon that theinterimorderdated 10.03.2010 by which the flnal rellef has been granted should not be sustalned and it Is tlable to b6 disiTilssed and the StateInformationCommissionb dlrerted to ^assftnal prclers a&early as pc^iy^ thedatealreadyflxed i.e., 21.5.201.0. Ordered aCGordingty. The impdgned order dated 19.04.2010 passed by the learn«lSlngleJudgesnallstandmodlfiedtotheextenttndicated .above..' : . / • •' •; ;. . : '' !; 1;. •~:1' : :1 With the above directlon, this writ appeal stands disposed of. No cost. C.c. as perrules. ftao Sd/- I.M. Quddusi Judge Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge