CWP No. 62 of 2011 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … CWP No. 62 of 2011 Date of decision: January 20,2011 Dr.Harjeet Singh ..Petitioner. Versus Central Informtion Commission and others ..Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. Rajan Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. ... M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J.(Oral) The challenge in this writ petition is to the action of non-supply of informations sought by the petitioner from the respondent-Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Limited one of the Branch of Citi Bank which provide the personal loan to the citizens, in view of provisions of The Right to Information Act,2005 (hereinafter to be referred as the “Act”). 2 According to the petitioner, when respondents did not supply the information of his personal loan, then he made an application dated 21.5.2010 along with the postal order of Rs. 100/- to the State Public Information Officer (for brevity “SPIO” ) of Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Limited for seeking the information. He received only the photocopy of the personal loan application (Annexure P-9) without complete information. Thereafter, he filed complaint to Chief Information Commissioner, New Delhi (for short “CIC”) but in vain. 3. The petitioner claimed that he received two letters dated 28.9.2010 (Annexure P-12) and 13.10.2010 (Annexure P-13) from Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Limited but till today, no information was supplied to him. CWP No. 62 of 2011 2 4. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequences of events in all according to the petitioner that the SPIO-respondent did not supply him the complete information even despite legal notice and the information (Annexure P-9) supplied by SPIO is not complete. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the petitioner sought the direction to respondents to supply the copies of documents/information sought by him in the manner indicated here-in-above. 5 After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, after going through the record with his valuable assistance and considering the entire matter deeply to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition. 6 As is evident from the record that the information supplied by SPIO - respondent of Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Limited/respondent No.4 was stated to be incomplete. If the petitioner was aggrieved by any order of SPIO, then he ought to have filed the first appeal before the first Appellate Authority (for short “FAA”). Even if the FAA did not redress the grievance of the petitioner, then he has statutory right to file a second appeal before the State Information Commissioner (for short ”SIC’) as contemplated under Section 19 of the Act. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed being pre-mature in the obtaining circumstances of the case. Needless to mention that petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the order of SPIO before the FAA and then before the SIC for redressal of his grievance. January 20,2011 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) nk JUDGE