IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14877 of 2009 1. TUNTUN BAHADUR THAPA S/O SRI TEK BAHADUR THAPA R/O ADALAT GANJ, NEAR ANTA CHALD, P.S- KOTWALI, DISTT- PATNA VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER, STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, SUCHNA BHAWAN, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE COMMISSIONER, STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, SUCHNA BHAWAN, BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE LAW OFFICER CUM REGISTRAR (JUDICIAL) STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, SUCHNA BHAWAN, BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE CHIEF SECRETARY BIHAR, PATNA 6. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY CUM PRINCIPAL INFORMATION OFFICER, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 7. THE INFORMATION OFFICER CUM JOINT SECRETARY ROAD CONSTRUCTION, DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 8. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA ----------- 02 04.01.2010 The petitioner was a daily wage employee under the Road Construction Department in Government of Bihar, appointment having been found illegal, having been appointed after 1981, he was terminated. He challenged it unsuccessfully up to the Apex Court. He now filed an application under Right to Information Act before the Road Construction Department seeking information as to under what circumstances about 751 similar employees were being retained in service whereas he had been dismissed. The information supplied was that in respect of the 769 such persons guidance was sought by the department from the Finance Department and the same was awaited. A decision would be taken only after getting a response from the Finance Department. In view of petitioner, this was insufficient information. Being aggrieved, he filed an appeal - 2 - before the State Information Commission. The appeal was disposed of by order, as contained in Annexure-15, wherein it was pointed out that information as required was supplied and if petitioner had any grievance with the department it could agitate the matter before the higher competent authority and/or competent Court. Petitioner is aggrieved by alleged non-supply of reasons. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, in my view, the information that was available with the Road Construction Department has been supplied. If petitioner has any grievance as to wrongful treatment meted to him, his remedy would either departmentally or through Court but he cannot make a grievance thereof under Right to Information Act. He has been told that awaiting decision of the Finance Department 769 such employees are being retained. In my view, if petitioner required more information then he should approach the Finance Department in this matter but surely the information sought from the Road Construction Department cannot be termed as inadequate or wanting any particular for the time being. In my view, the writ petition is thus premature and is disposed of as such. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)