1 S.MS '6^ «S 'S '^ IN THE H^IN'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0. / 2011 PET1TIONER RESPONDENTS VERSUS 1. .••'_ls/!''/ •^/^A ^ f^-'/' ^m- -^- ^' y// / ^ 2. 3. 4. Manbodh Budeg S/o. Balak.Das, aged about- 37 years, R/o. Village Chandkhuri, Block Basna, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) Chhattisgarh Information Commission, Through:- the Secretary, Nirmal Chhaya Bhawan, Meera Datar Road, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) The Chief Information Commissioner, Nirmal Chhaya Bhawan, Meera Datar Road, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Public Information Officer, Office of the Gram Panchayat Village Chandkhuri, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Basna, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETIT)ONER(S) As mentioned in the cause title. 2. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENT(S) AsTnentioned above in the cause title. ,^s.~ ^•' ^stwiab ll -'Pi'BSs tNagi^, 3o HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C ) NQ.7S5/2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS 1 Manbodh Budeg, S/o Balak Das, aged about 37 years, R/o Village Chandkhuri, Block Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.) Versus Chhattisgarh . Information Commission, Through the Secretary, Nirmal Chhaya Bhawan, Meera Datar Road, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 2 The Chief Information Commissioner, Nirmal Chhaya Bhawan, Meera Datar Road, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 3 Public !nformation Officer, Office of the Gram Panchayat Village Chandkhuri, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 4 Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.) WR1T PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 QF THE CONSTITUTIQN OF !NDIA Apisearance: Mr. Saurabh Dangi, Counset for the petitioner. Mr. Shyam Tekchandani, Counsel for respondent No.1 on advance copy. ORALORDER (08.02.2011) SUNIL KUIVIAR SINHA. J. Heard. Petitioner- Manbodh Budeg filed an application before respondent No.4 seeking certain information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short "the Act, 0 M "''" -4^ WRIT PETITION (C ) No.755/2011 2005"). The information was not supplied to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. When the Appellate Authority did not decide the appeal, then, the petitioner filed Second Appeal No.1020/2009 before respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 disposed of the Second Appeal vide order dated 30.07.2010 and certain directions were issued relating to the information sought by the petitioher. The copy of the order has been filed as Annexure P/5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even after the said directions contained in order dated 30.07.2010 passed by respondent No.1 in S.A. No. 1020/2009, the concerned authorities did not comply with the said directions, therefore, the petitioner sent a complaint to respondent No.1 on 09.09.2010 (Annexure P/6). He submits that after receiving the compliant of the petitioner on 09.09.2010, respondent No.1 has nottaken any action against the concerned authorities; therefore, respondent No.1 may be suitably directed to take action in accordance with the provisions of Section 18 of the Act, 2005. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the application filed yide Annexure P/6 does not appear to be in proper form. It also does not appear as to whether the said application was received by respondent No.1 or not. He submits that this petition may be finally disposed of with the direction to the petitioner to file a duly constituted fresh complaint under Section 18 of the Act, 2005 and if such a complaint is filed, the same shall be disposed of in accordance with law. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering the contents of Annexures P/5 and P/6, 1 deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petltion with the direction that if so advised, the petitioner ! WRIT PETITION (C ) No.7SS/2011 may filed a duly constituted fresh complaint before the concerned authority within 15 days from today and if such a complaint is fited, the same shall be disposed of by the said authority in accordance with law. With the aforesaid direction/observation, this petition stands finally disposed of. No order as to cost(s). g^y Kumar Sinha Judge shyna