@ iN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PET!T!ONER APPELLANT RE$PONDEN?$ / $anjay Kumar Sahu SIO Dayaram Sahu, aged 33 Years, Occupation — Business‘ R/O Kaserpara, Chakradharnagar, Tahsil & District ~ Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS /1. Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Through : Secretary, Meera datar Road, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) r2. State Information Commissioner, Chhattisgarh State information Commission, Meera datar Road‘ 53hankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.‘) / 3. Public informatirm Officer —Cum- Divisional Forest Officer, District ~Raigarh (CiGi) Mi. First Apoeiiaie Auti'ioriiy —Cum— Conservator, Forest, Eiiiaspur Circie, Bilaspur (CG‘) Q; “so/P, Writ Petition (C) No. $75? 12011 ($3.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 {3f THE CONSTlTUTiON OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRL'I: IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS CERTIORARY OR ANY OTHER WRIT OF LIKE NATURE ETC. WW.W.W 3mm SB : Hon’ble Shri Manindra Mohan Sh 28-04-2011 Shri Vipin Punjabi, counsel for the Heard on admission. This petition has been med by the passed by the State Information Comn Divisional Forest Officer, Raigarh-the P necessary iniormation desired by the Pubtic Service Commission and provide t Learned counsel for the petition provisions contained in Section 6 sub sec 2005 (In short “the Act"), if the informa Raman B. Somawar and other connecte application for the purposes of recruitn respondent No.3, then the petitioner‘s ap for such information ought to be tran authority, which is in possession of those respondent No.3-the Public Information ( the petitioner med an appeal before the which has passed the impugned order. A perusal of provision contained iin sub section (3) of Section 6 of the Act shows that where an applicatiOi requesting for information, which is held the public authority, to which, such appll application or such part of it as may be 'ivastava, J. petitioner. petitioner aggrieved by the order ission to the extent it directs the Jblic Information Officer to obtain petitioner from Madhya Pradesh 1e same to the petitioner. er submitted that in view of the tion(3) of Right to Information Act, tion with regard to application of d documents along with the said tent were not available with the plication or part of the application sferred to the concerned public information/documents. However, )fficer did not do so, where after, State Information Commission, 1 is made to the public authority by another public authority, then cation is made, shall transfer the e appropriate to that other public l ‘ 'l", QTfh ‘T