G c^ ^^l- IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) W.P. CCV No. ^^—13SSS-2.oM^ PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ,..^2 ^0.-^..- \^°%^7 A^%7' ^ ..••°-^.•^ ^.·>' ^ c^' ^*' .y ?\>" ^ ^" D. S. Shashtry S/o- Late D. V. N. aloieub Murthy, aged ^ 62 VERSUS 2. years, occupation- Translator, R/o- infront of Laxmi Sundaram Lodge, Dayalband, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Through Chief Information Commissioner, Nirmal Chhaya Bhawan, Meera Datar Road, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) ^,,. Deputy Secretary/ Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Nirmal Chhaya Bhawan, Meera Datar Road, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Principal, C.M.D. Post Graduate College, Bilapur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) . . Public Information Officer, Office of Principal C.M.D. Post Graduate College, Bilapur, Distr-ict- Bilaspur (C.G.) Chairman, Management Committee, C.M.D. Post Graduate College, Bilapur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CQNSTITUTION OF INDIA. 3. 4. ^ 5. ^' ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0.52 OF 2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS D.S. Shashtry Versus Chhattisgarh State Commission & Others Information 1. 2. 3. ^ (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe CQnstitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri F.S. Khare, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shyam Tekchandani, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2. Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Advocate for respondents No.3 to 5. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 9th dayofAugust, 2010) Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent State Information Commission (for short "the respondent Commission") to decide the representation dated 24-9-2009 (Annexure - P/5) for compliance of the orderdated 11-2-2009 (Annexure - P/2) passed by it. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order was passed on 11-2-2009 by the respondent Commission directing the respondents No.3 to 5 to supply certain information to the petitioner and a cost of Rs.500/- was imposed. Despite the order of the respondent Commission, nothing has happened till date. Accordingly, the petitioner made an application on 24-9-2005 (Annexure ~ P/5) in the office of the respondent Commission seeking compliance of the earlier order dated 11-2-2009. Learned counsel further submits that no action has been taken on the said application till date. Thus, this petition. Normally this Court should not monitor the functioning of the respondent Commission, however, in a case like this it is for the respondent Commission to see that the order passed by it, is complied with in its letter and spirit. It appears that no decision has been taken on the application dated 24-9-2009 till date, thus it is expected that the respondent Commission shall look into the matter and take decision in accordance with law and on its own merits, as early as possible. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.i Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge 4. 5. &3