@ f HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR W.P. (C) NO. 41 3/2011 PETITIONER Sanjay Kumar Sahu, S/o Dayaram Sahu, aged 33 years, Occupation- Business, R/o Kaserpara, Chakradhamagar, Tahsil & District- Raigarh (C.G.) Vs. RESPONDENTS 1 . Chhattisgarh State information Commission Through: Secretary, Meera datar Road, Shankar Nagar. Raipur (C.G.) in t 2. State information Commissioner, Chhattisgarh State information Commission, Meera datar Road, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Pubiic Information Officer- Cum- Divisionai Forest Officer, District- Raigarh (C.G.) 4. First Appeiiate Authority-Cum- Conservator. Forest, Biiaspur Circle, Biiaspur (C.G.) 5. Pubiic information Officer, Office Principal Secretary, Forest Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, D.K. Parisar, Raipur (C.G‘) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearance: Mr. P.K. Tuisiyan, Advocate for the petitioner. ORAL ORDER (24.01.2011) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA J. ‘ Heard on admission. Petitioner- Sanjay Kumar Sahu filed an application before Public information Ofticer—Cum-Sub Divisional Officer, District Ralgarh (C.G.)/respondent No.3 herein, seeking certain information under Right to information Act. The Said \ \‘a\ppiication was disposed of by respondent No.3 on 31 .0709. @ 2 w.P. (C) No. 41312011 Being aggrieved with the order dated 31 .07.09 passed by respondent No.3. the petitioner filed First appeal before the Appellate Authority/respondent No.4. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal vide order dated 29.09.09. Being aggrieved with the order dated 29.09.09, passed by the First Appellate Authority; the petitioner then tiled second appeal No. 105/09 before the Second Appellate Authority, Chhattisgarh State Information Commission. Raipurlrespondent No.1 . in the said second appeal, the respondent No.1 issued a show cause notice to respondent No.5 u/s 20(1) of the Right to Information Act and proposed penalty @ Rs. 250l- per day on respondent No.5. By the said Notice, the next date of hearing was fixed on 17.08.10. The copy of the show cause notice was also sent to the petitioner and it was specifically directed in the notice that the hearing of the matter will take place on 17.08.10 at 12 noon and the petitioner should appear in the Video conferencing hall (DIC) in the office of District Collector, Raigarh. it appears that even after receiving the notice of hearing on 17.08.10, the petitioner did not turn up to the Coilectorate. Raigarh or he did not make any arrangement for his representation before the Second Appellate Authority at the time of hearing of second appeal No. 105/09 on 17.08.10, therefore, the Second Appellate authority passed the impugned order on 17.08.10. The impugned order reads as under:- “17~03~1o WW latitudgrrhem luitraiitodarwa sit cameo mam, armada minim Lager am. mmmwaisamra issaaarariar momammméiwg‘ds lufr‘iethom wwwmmt‘mmm WWWahWchs idii’iosigqhems mmmwqdiumdméiahmismn @WWQWWIIETWW trowel tie/- W {1?}?! W 17~0&-10" @ 3 W.P. (C) NO. 41 3/2011 The petitioner without approaching to the Second Appellate Authority and without making any prayer for setting aside the order passed by the Second Appellate Authority has tiled this petition. Mr. P.K. Tulsiyan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, could not demonstrate as to why, the petitioner has not approached/appeared through the video conferencing before the Second Appellate Authority. ln the above facts and circumstances of the case, when the petitioner did not appear before the Second Appellate Authority and he did not participate in the proceeding, even through the video conferencing after due information to him about the date of hearing of second appeal on 17.08.10, l do not find any infirmity in the order dated 1708.1 O passed by the Second Appellate Authority. k For the foregoing reasons. l do not find any substance in the petition. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. $8. No order as to costs. l g Sd/— fl Sunil Kumar Sinha " Judge Rahul