CWP No. 7410 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 7410 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: August 27, 2010 Rakesh Sharma .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Chief Information Commissioner, Haryana and others ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. P.R. Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order Annexure P-16 dated 21.04.2009 passed by respondent no. 1 i.e. Chief Information Commissioner, Haryana. Reference to the other orders need not be made in view of the nature of controversy. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that vide communication sent by the petitioner, the applicant-complainant-respondent Ashok Kumar Puri, resident of Mumbai was duly given the information. 3. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel. 4. Perusal of order Annexure P-16 indicates that the authority has taken into account the relevant considerations and thereafter come to the conclusion that the complainant had been put to considerable harassment in obtaining information. There has been a delay of more than 9 months in giving information. The following needs to be extracted from order CWP No. 7410 of 2009 2 Annexure P-16:- “......During the hearing Tehsildar Sohna denied having received any instruction about conducting another demarcation from the DC, Gurgaon. However, the application dated 10.6.2008 specifically requesting information on this point has not been answered by the respondent-department. The reply No. 558 dated 20.8.2008 is not to the point as far as the demarcation is concerned. Similarly with regard to application dated 16.7.2008 the reply sent vide letter No. 560 dated 20.8.2008 is also quite misleading. It gives the impression that the correct mutation No. 278 was ready which can be obtained by him by contacting the Patwari concerned. On the other hand in response to the notice the department has contended that since the entries have been incorporated in the subsequent Jamabandies no revenue officer can interfere and do any correction which can only be done by the Civil Court. The contention of the appellant was that this information could have been furnished to him in the month of August itself instead of being given in the reply to the notice on 27.3.2009. The Commission finds a lot of weight in the arguments put forward by the appellant. The department should have informed the correct position to him with regard to the correction that can be made in the mutation which has been incorporated in the subsequent jamabandies. Thus, the information furnished with regard to both the applications CWP No. 7410 of 2009 3 vide separate letters dated 20.8.2008 was quite evasive and misleading. However, with regard to application dated 16.7.2008 the position has now been made clear vide communication dated 27.3..2009 the position has now been made clear vide communication dated 27.3.2009. The only point on which information remains to be given in with regard to application dated 10.6.2008. The appellant requested the Commission that he has been put to considerable harassment in obtaining information in this case which has been delayed for more than nine months by the respondent-department. He deserved to be suitably compensated under Section 19(b) of the RTI Act. The following directions are, therefore, hereby, given in this case:- 1. A sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) is awarded as compensation to the appellant under Section 19(8)(b) of the Act and the respondent- department is directed to make the payment by 15.5.2009 under intimation to the Commission. 2. A proper reply shall be furnished by the SPIO- Tehsildar, Sohna to the application dated 10.6.2008 about the correction in demarcation (Nishandehi) if any carried out on the instructions of the DC. This shall also be done by 15.5.2009. 3. The SPIO-cum-DRO, Gurgaon shall also intimate the appellant as to whether any application for revised demarcation was received by him through the DC, CWP No. 7410 of 2009 4 Gurgaon and if so what action was taken by him on this application. This shall also be done by 15.5.2009.” 5. Considering the contents of the extracted portion, I am of the considered opinion that the relevant facts and circumstances within the scope and ambit of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short 'The Act') have been taken into account while passing the impugned order. The jurisdiction of the authority that has passed the impugned order is not under challenge. 6. In extra ordinary writ jurisdiction, no interference is called for by way of judicial review of the impugned order passed by the statutory authority under the Act. 7. Petition is accordingly dismissed. 27.08.2010 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?