(‘4) 1N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 5INGIE gEmH Writ Petition (C) No. &€'§\’\ /2010 PETITIONER cmlattisgarh Public Service Commission , through Public Information Officer, Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil and District — Raipur (Chhattisgarh). Versus RESPONDENTS 13.- ghhattisgarh State Information v/ .4 Commission, through its Chief Information Commissioner, Nirmal ‘3“, WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A SUITABLE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE 7k MATTER. y Chhaya Bhawan,‘ Meera Datar Road, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2. if State Chief Information Commissioner, Nirmal Chhaya Bhawan, Meera Datar Road, Shankar ‘I Nagar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3 Ms Utkarsh Bharti, Daidali Marg, Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTfSGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) NO.2534 OF 2010 QLJQ Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Versus Chhattisgarh State Information Commission & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Singie Bench : Han’bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. .IiéSit'IQJ‘QENTS '3 recent :— Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Advocate with Shri Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shyam Tek Chandani, Advocate for the respondents None for the respondent No.3, despite service of notice. No.1 & 2. ORDER ORAL) (Passed on this 29m da'y or June, 201 1) Heard learned counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 3-2-2010 (Annexure - Pf1) passed by the Chief Information Commissioner, Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Raipur, in appeal No.1 1 12/2009. regard to cut off marks in CD. (compact disc), in regard to the State Civil Sen/ices Preliminary Examination 2008. By letter dated 29-6—2009 the petitioner declined to provide the information on the ground that the selection process was not completed. Being aggrieved by the said communication dated 29—6-2009, the respondent No.3 preferred an appeal, to which the petitioner submitted its reply. The said appeal was dismissed on 27-8-2009. Thereagainst, the respondent No.3 preferred an appeal before the “respondent No.1, to which also the petitioner submitted its reply. The respondent No.1 by order dated 3-2~2010 directed to provide L some information sought for by the respondent No.3 in an illegal and arbitrary manner. Thus, this petition 5, According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner the direction to make disclosure is contrary to Rule 18 of the State { Service Examination Rules, 2008 and such a direction to act contrary to law cannot be made. The impugned order has been passed without having any jurisdiction. 6. The impugned order is passed on misreading of the application, as the respondent No.3 has sought for information not only in respect of cut off marks in General, OBC, SC & ST categories & marks obtained by her, but other informations namely; Roll Nos., names, ”l addresses and date of birth of other candidates appearing in the 1w. l preliminary examination from outside the State of Chhattisgarh. Thus, the impugned order appears to be cryptic, and slipshod manner without examining the application of the respondent No.3 properly. ‘ 7. . At this juncture, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 & 2 submits that the impugned order may be quashed and the matter may be remitted back to the respondent authorities for its re-consideration. 8. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the impugned order dated 3-2—2010 (Annexure — P/1) is quashed and the matter is remitted L l back to the respondent authorities for its reconsideration and pass appropriate order, in accordance with law and on its own merits, as \ W expeditiously as possible. 9. ln the result, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated 1,5: above. No order asto costs. r u;;;;/f ’ g Sdl— Gowri sATISH K- AGNrHOTBl Judge