^ ^ /<^/^ . f ® IN THEHIGH COURT OFCHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.t CINO. _\ ??& PETITIONER Chetan Rajput, aged about 46 years, S/o. Shri Rewa Chand, R/o. Chakradhar Nagar, Kaser Para, Raigarh (C.G^). VERSUS ^.- ^- Ghhattisgarh Information Comniission, Through - Its Secretary, Meeradatar Road, Shanker Nagar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur-(C.G.) Conservator of Forest, Bilaspur Circle, Bilaspur-(C.G.) Public Information Officer, District Forest Office, Raigarh DivisiQn, Raigarh-fC.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 2260F THE CONSTITUTION RESPONDENTS -qi?.--''^y ,^-w ^^ 'y^ jte. mOH COUKT OF CHHA'FTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER WRTFPETITIG)N('G)No. 1556 of2009 GhetanRajput • VERSUS:' KESPONDENTS Chhattisgarh Information Coimriisstori &; OtUers .;..'.::', • : - :; : : - WIUTPETITICN1JNDERAICTICLE2260FTHECONSTITUTIONOFI^ SBiIIon'MeSliriSafishK.AeniIiotn.J. Present: Shri.SuniLOtwani,AxtvocatefOTthepetitioner.^^^^^' ^ ShnP.K. Bhaduri,PanelI-awyerforthe^State._^^^^^'^ • ORDER<ORAL) (Passed on 06th' day of\August,i 2010) .Chdleiige m tHis petftion is to^^^t^ (ABnexuieP/1),, 06/05/2008 (AnnexureP/2) arid 29/02/2^^^^ (Annexure P/3), wherem (he infbrmafion sought &i' 'by the petitiQner , . has been rejectedon fhe ground that sihee a case is pending against'the :•. petitioiler, ttie inSmriafion as' sought fer by him ca^ lae supplied. i,!. Further, fhe ifflfbrmation saught for by the petitiDner is fceiag misused;'' ;. thus,fhepetitioneTwasnot'supgliedthedocuments.' : ' Shri Otwani, leamedcouHseLappearmgfbr1hepetitioner,subimtatKat'^^^'^^; the mformafioh sought forbyfhepetitioner^has;notKingfodo^^\^^ case pending agairist hui^^as ffie'said documents^ ^ ^ ; nor may Be used at any pojnt of time: against the'petititMier &r whieh; fhe CaseUas been registered. • :^ .,-:.,.• . : , l; ,' On the other hand, Shn Bhaduri, leamed counsel^appearmg'foC.tK&^^^ State, sybmits that tiie infbrmation sought fbr:bythe^etitioneri&no£;i^. k .i-is:i-s:,i.-w:^sBygs,i'ssss': ^^ ^n'i !t 7. bonafide aad there is a provision enshrined in Section 8(l)(h) ofthfe Right to Infbrmation Act, 2005: CEbr 'short "the Act, 2005")- fhat information which would impede the proc.ess of inv.estigatiQn' cir. apprehensiim^proseeufionbfoffendersffiesaidmfbn^ be fumished. This is the ease where lall Uie iaformatibns are^ required; fbr investigatidnin thepending case, Bethatasitmay, onhearing leamed CDunselappearingfortheparties, pemsing the pleadings and the documents appended^^ te appears that the authorities haye not considered tbe provisions ofttie Act, 2005 in its letter and spirit. Certaiii grounds that it.is being. misused or a case against him is pending alone carinpt be the ground fbr refusal of uifbrmation unless it is esfablished that flioge informatiQns arerequiredinfhe enqiiiiy, inYestigation orprosecutiori. . In view of that^without expressuig^any dpinion on the merits of the case,,tlieimpugnedorderdated 27/09/2008 (Anriexure. P/I) Is quashed. The matter is remitted fcack to fhe Ghief InformatiBii Gommissioner for cpnsidering the case of the petitioner afresh after. applying fhe provisions oflaw in its letter and spirit and pass fhe brder maccordancewithlawaiidonitsownmerits. : In the result, fhe writ petifiim is allowed to .the^^^e^ .hereinabove. - • , .. Befbre parting with this order, it-is made clear that the QbSCTvatitfns- made hereinabQve, if any, may not be GOnstrued as opinion pf.'tttts Court. : 1; :, ,•(-^"•—'''''••--'%--B-"-^--^».^—„ 4 satishK.Agnjhotri ^ . . r'."""""''' ^" ''"''•'"• '•i~i?'^.:!f'''^-.._^. ^ : ', :"•- ,.^ r-fET^-~^=:i?7>-;^^rf*J^s^l^sa^^^^^