HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH :BILASPUR PETmQNER RESPONDENTS WRITPETmON (Ct N0.2597 OF 2008 Gyandutt Mishra, son of Late Shri Prithvipal Mishra, aged about 65 years, resident of Brindavan Colony, Jagdalpur, Distt. Baslar (CG). Versus 1. The Chief Information Commissioner (Right to Information), Bhopal.Madhya Pradesh. 2. Prineipal Secretary, Deptt, of Tribal Welfare, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal 3. Principal Secretary, Deptt. of Tribal Welfare, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 4, Upper Secretary, Deptt. of Tribal Welfare, Bhopat (MP). 5. Commissioner, Department of Tribal Welfare, Bhopal (MP). 6. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Tribal Weffare, DKS Bhavran, Raipur (CG). (Writ petition underArticte 226 oftheConstitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble ShriSatish K. ^nihotri, J. Present:. Shri Ashok Kumar ShuMa, counsel forthe petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyerforthe State. ^fr ORALORDER (Passed on this 13th day of April, 2009) By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to suppty copy of enquiry report prepared in the year 1992 by the Additional Collector, District Rural Development Authority (DRDA) and prays for imposition of penalty on the authority concemed under the Right to Information Act, with a direction to pay fine. 2) Eariier the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the s,ame relief in W.P.(C) No.14 of 2007. This Court by order dated B< "i^^^^jj^? ~L- Gowri 18-1-2007 (Annexure - P/1) while dismissing the petitiongranted tiberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy before the concerned authorities under the Right to Information Act. 3) According to the leamed counsel appearing forthe petitioner, the petitioner preferred an application beforethe P-rincipal Secretary, SC/ST Welfare Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, on 5-2-^X)8, but no response was rweived by him. Thereafter, the petitioner has approached the Chief Information Commissioner, State of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal. Leamed counsel further submits that no order has yet been passed by the Chief Information Commissioner, State of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal. 4) If the petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the partof the Chief Information Commissioner, State of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, the petitioner ought to have approached the appropriate High Court instead of approaching this High Court because the petitioner has not moved any application before the Chief Information Commissioner, State of Chhattisgarh, Raipur. 5) In view of the foregoing and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, this petition is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed asnot maintainable. Sd/- . ,, SarishK.Agnih»m ^*. ;(-?-ii;4'ti;^.^iisi4" StiS.to iWS; '^•:^^:.