CWP No. 3187 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 3187 of 2010 Date of decision : 17.03.2011 Surajbhan ...Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. Rajeev Godara, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Narender Singh, D.A.G., Haryana for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Nemo for respondent No. 5 **** M ehinder S ingh S ullar, J. (Oral) What is not disputed here is that petitioner-Surajbhan moved various applications i.e. applications dated 26.09.2006 (Annexure P1) & 13.10.2006 (Annexure P3) to the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Bawal, District Rewari (for brevity “BDPO”) and application dated 12.10.2006 (Annexure P2) to Sarpanch, Village Kalrawas, District Rewari for making arrangement of drainage of dirty water of the village. He also moved similar applications dated 26.10.2006 (Annexure P4) and 07.11.2006 (Annexure P5) to Deputy Commissioner, Rewari- respondent No.3 (for brevity “DC”) to improve the drainage system in the village. 2. Thereafter, he moved application dated 16.01.2007 (Annexure P-6) before the Public Information Officer-respondent No. 7 (for brevity “the PIO”) and sought the information, in view of the provisions of The Right to Information Act, 2005 and Rules framed therein (hereinafter to be CWP No. 3187 of 2010 -2- referred as “the Act/Rules”) relating to day to day proceedings on his applications, the applications were sent to which officer, who took how many days to deal with it, names and designation of the officers who were required to take action on the applications, action taken against these officers for not performing their duty properly and when the arrangement of drainage of dirty water will be made. 3. The BDPO supplied the information and informed the petitioner in this regard, vide letter dated 12.06.2007 (Annexure P13) 4. Although, the information was supplied to the petitioner but he again filed the second appeal before the State Information Commission- respondent No. 6 (for short “the SIC”) (Appellate Authority), which was disposed of, by means of impugned order dated 09.10.2007 (Annexure P16) 5. The petitioner still did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned actions and order (Annexure P16), invoking the provisions of Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. That is how I am seized of the matter. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record, with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition in this context. 7. As is evident from the record that considering the fact that the entire information has already been supplied to the petitioner, the SIC has disposed of the second appeal of the petitioner, vide impugned order dated 09.10.2010 (Annexure P16), the operative part of which is as under:- “However the BDPO, Bawal has brought to the notice of Commission that said information has been supplied vide letter dated 12.6.2007. A copy of this communication shows that the representation dated 26.10.2006 of the appellant was with regard to the flow of dirty water in front of his house and the steps taken by Administration/ Gram Panchayat to rectify the situation. In the CWP No. 3187 of 2010 -3- communication dated 12.6.2007 it has been mentioned that the BDPO, Bawal had given directions on 10.11.2006 to the Gram Panchayat, Kalrawas to take effective steps to stop the flow of dirty water in the vicinity of the house of the appellant. The spot was also visited by the BDPO, Bawal as well as DDPO, Rewari. In the end it has been mentioned that a request has been made for some official grant and as soon as it is received a drain shall be constructed to take care of this problem. The First Appellate Authority has also decided the appeal on similar lines by stating that after receipt of the requisite grant the drain will be got constructed by the Gram Panchayat. The First Appellate has therefore held that requested information has been supplied. It is clear that as far as the question of supply of information is concerned it has been attended to and information stands supplied vide letter dated 12.6.2007. However the BDPO, Bawal has brought to the notice of the Commission that a request has been made to Additional Deputy Commissioner, Rewari for grant of funds to execute the work. The BDPO further assured that all efforts shall be made to get the work executed at the earliest. He also expressed the hope that it will not take more than two weeks after receipt of funds to complete this work. The Commission hopes that the Additional Deputy Commissioner Rewari will consider the proposal received from the BDPO, Bawal favourably and decide the matter preferably within a month. A copy of this order shall also be sent to the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Rewari for taking immediate appropriate action”. 8. Meaning thereby, the entire information has already been supplied to the petitioner under the Act. However, the cosmetic argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that since the DC/ District Development and Panchayat Officer (for short “DDPO”) have not improved the drainage system in the village, therefore, the SIC ought to have imposed the penalty on them, is not only devoid of merits but misplaced as well. CWP No. 3187 of 2010 -4- 9. The Appellate Authority can only direct the PIO to supply the requisite information. The authorities under the Act have no jurisdiction to direct the D.C or DDPO to construct the drain or improve the drainage system in the village. This remedy lies somewhere else. If the petitioner is aggrieved with the non-functioning of the drainage system in the village then he may approach to BDPO/DC or DDPO for ventilation of his grievances. Be that as it may, but no relief can possibly be granted to him under the Act, in this regard. 10. In this manner, as there is no ambiguity, therefore, the impugned order (Annexure P16) deserves to be and is hereby maintained, in the present set of circumstances. 11. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for the parties. 12. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) Judge March 17, 2011 G.Arora