Dlvlston BencK ^ ^"s-r^ IN THE HON»BLEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Aooeal No ^O] /2011 APPELLANT PETITIONER RESPONDENTS :-/ 1 ^,-- ^y/"c. ^y^ ..-.• Rahul Birtharey, aged about 3S years, son of Shri O.P. Birtharey, R/o F-104, Amba Tower, Vinoba Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.). VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Environment and Urban Development Mantralaya, D«K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.). Chhattisgarh State Inforination Coinniission, Through the State Information Commissioner, Meera Datar Road, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.). 1 First Appellate Authority, under the R.T.I. Act, 2005, Deputy Commissioner (III), Commissioner Headquarter, Chhattisgarh Grih Nirman Mandal, Shakar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Public Information Officer (Ex. En.), Chhattisgarh Grih Nirman Mandal, Bilaspur Division, Nehru Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.). WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2U) OF CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH) ACT, 2006 R/W RULE 157^ (1)^ OF CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT RULES, 300&;1?6 Ll r ^CTD^ ~^y>^ ^yy'' v</'.«/ ^t^f. ® 1 I KIQH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRITAPPBAL N0.401 QF 2011 APPELLANT/ PETITIONER RE8PONDBNTS Ratxul Bu'llAai'ey Vesrsus The State of Chhattisgarh and others, WRIT APPBAL UNDBR SBCTIOEf 2111 OF CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT {APPEAL TO DIVI8ION BENCHl ACT. 2006 RfW RULE 158(101 OF CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT RULBS. 2007. Divisiott Beachs Hon'ble Dr. I.M. Ouddusi & Hon*ble Shri G. Miiihaiuddln^JJ. Preses&ts AppeUaiit in persoa, Shri Viaay Hadt Deputy Advocate General for fhe State/rcspondcnt No.l, Shri Shyam Siinder Lal Tekcfaaiidam, counsel for respondent No,2. Shri Anumeli Shrivastava, couiisel for rcspondeiits No. 3&4. ORAL ORDBR (Passed oa 7th day ofDecember, 2011$ This writ appeal has been filed against fhe impiigned order dated 02-05-2011 passed by learned Siagle Judge of fbiis CoiArt ia Writ Petitioa (C) No. 6532/2010 by which learned Single Judge, after observiiig that as Aiotliing sui~vives for adjudicatioa as per tihe petitioiier, has disposed of flie writ petitlon, 2. Brief facte of tiie case are fliat fhe writ appeUant seeks a direction to tiie respondeut No,4 to supply certi&ed copy of the "Setf Fmaace Scheme of fhe Chhattisgarh Grih Nirmari Maadal as per flie appllcatlon dated 1-1-2010. 3. However, siixce flie i^spondente were ready to supply furfher inforiaatlon, tifcie writ petition was disposed of by learned Siagle Judge by fhe followiiig order: "1. By this petitioii, the petitioner seeks a direetioa to thie respondent No.4 to supply certified copy of the SeIf-Fmaiice Scheme of fhe Chhattsgarlx ^Rs^ ,€.'^ Grlli Nlriiiaa Mandal as per the applicatioii dated 1-1-2010 (Annexu P-4). 2. Sliri Shrivastava, learned counsel appeax'iag for the respondeiits No. 3 & 4 subjaaiita fhat fhe Housing Board has already supplied fhe certified copy of the iiiforiiiation sought for by fhe petitk>ner, which is denied t>y the petitioiier. 3. Be that as It iiiay, fhis is iiot aii issue to declde OAI merit, as learaed counsel appeariag for the respondents No. 3 & 4 very fairiy sxibiiiits fbat tliere is no objection iu providiag aaofher ceilified copy of the ijiforniation sought for by tiie petitioner at fh.e earliest The iaLformatiou shaU be sent by fhe Registered Post. 4. In view of foregomg, according to the petitiojier nothliig suivives ia thls petitioii for adjudlcation. 5. Accordiagly, fhe wnt petltion is dlsposed of 4. However, today a printed directory ofM.P. Housiiig Board, adopted by the Chhattisgarh Housiag Board, has beeii produced by fhe leamed couiisel for fiie Chhattisgarh Housing Board regarding liiforination in respect of "Setf Piiiancitig Scheiae", 5. The writ appeUaat herein has mentioiied his pxobleiii fh.at he has takeii a MIG House behind high-tecfa bus staad, Parsada at BUaspur but fhe same has beefi given on lease. Sale deed has not been niade ia respect of fhe land but the constraction has been inade for which registry has been done aiid, fhereft>re, the writ appeUaiit wants fhe particulars of "Self Fiiiaace ^heiaie^ as he wante to know as to what is the reasoii that the leuid is not bein.g sold but it is beiag given on lease ouly. 6. The Executive Engmeer Shri Hai-sh Kumai' Joshi of the Chhattisgarh Housmg Boaixl is present aud has submitted before fhis Court ftiat fhere is sio mstruction from the Housiag Board to sell fhe land and fh.e land 1s giveii oiily on lease. As sooa as fh.e perimssioii w£U be given to seU fhe laad, flie land wlU be made &€€hold but at fhis tmie, it is on lease hold onty. ..".1^^^.; 7. However, learned counsel for fhe reapoadeiit/C,G, Housmg Board has ioformed fhis Court that oa fhe basi^ of MisttTictions tliere aie separate self flaaiiciiig scheiuies for different areas of Bilaspur. Thei'efore., he would be able to supply fhe same ia case flie writ appeUant waiits to get tiie copy of flie Setf FiiiancMig Scheme of ftie ofher ai'eas of Bllaspui or the Project concerned. 8. In view of fhe above, we dispose of the instaiit writ appeal witii a du'ectioii fhat iii case the writ appeUacit iiioves aa appUcation to fhe Chhattisgarh Housiiig Board for pix>vidMig him Setf Fitiaiiciiig Scheme for BHaspiu or fiie px'oject coricerned, aa the case may be, fhe same shall be supplied to him. Sd/- Dr. I.M. Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge Kw