IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.22380 of 2010 Date of Decision: December 16, 2010 Anil Jodhani & another .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State Information Commissioner Cum Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. A.K. Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) CWP No.22380 of 2010 [2] 1. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner, exercising his right under the Right to Information Act, 2005, filed an application to seek certain information vide Application dated 7.6.2010 (Annexure P-1). Information was not given, therefore, the petitioner had to file first appeal. Still information was not given and therefore, the petitioner had to file second appeal/ complaint before the State Information Commission, Haryana. 2. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court towards Annexure P-7 to say that the State Information Commission directed the State Assistant Public Information Officer cum Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, Gurgaon (for short, ‘SPIO’) to furnish complete and correct information as mentioned in the original application, within 15 working days of receiving the order of Commission, free of cost. 3. Learned counsel further states that although order has been passed on 9.11.2010, information has not been furnished. 4. I have considered the contentions of learned counsel. 5. Perusal of order dated 9.11.2010 (Annexure P-7) indicates that a show cause notice under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information CWP No.22380 of 2010 [3] Act, 2005 was also given to the SPIO to show cause as to why penalty amounting to ₹ 250/- for each day of delay be not imposed on him for not giving the information within time. The comments were to be submitted by the said authority by 27.11.2010 and the matter was kept pending for 1.12.2010. 6. It becomes evident on perusal of the order (Annexure P-7) that proceedings are still pending. Order Annexure P-7 is not the final order and the issue is still alive. In such circumstances, this Court would not exercise jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India and issue directions. 7. The State Information Commission is seized of the conduct of SPIO and the Court trusts that the duties as entrusted with the State Information Commission, Haryana, under the Right to Information Act, 2005, would be discharged so as to give meaning to the Act. 8. No ground for interference in extraordinary writ jurisdiction, at this stage, is made out. 9. The petition is disposed of. 10. Let a copy of this order be sent to the State Information Commission, Haryana. (AJAI LAMBA) December 16, 2010 JUDGE CWP No.22380 of 2010 [4] avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?