^[^^ BEFORE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (0 No.L|&5i& /2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENT y.^ ,^ ^l^^: F^?%». /F <y'.y. Rajesh Prasad Soni, son of Panhulal / Soni, aged about 49 years, Nagar Nigam Colony, Maharana Pratap Square, Raipurnaka, Bilaspur(C.G.) VERSUS : 1. Stateof Chhattisgarh, Through: theSecretary," Urban Administration and Welfare Department, D.K.S. Rajpur (C.G.) , 2. Special Secretary, Information Qfficer, Urban Administration arid Welfare Department, Maritralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 3. State Ihformation Commission, Through: Its Commissioner, Nirmalchaaya Bhawan, Meeradatar Road, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) , 4. Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur Through: Its /Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, DistnctBilaspur(C.G.) WRIT PETITIQN UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTIQNOFINDIA. ' Theabove namedP^titionerrespectfullysubmitsasunder:- i t] •L:i|:^-!^ HIGH COURTQF CHHATTiSGARH AT BILASPU! fe^ Versus 1 r'scoau ous State of Chhattisaam & Others WRIT PE71T10N UNDER ARTiCLE 227 OF THE CONSTiTUT!ON OF INDiA • Sn^ n i'bie t. s^ IVil. OOU51I Pr»epn< f^-il^s: Shri Anup Majumdar, Advocate forthe petitioner. Shri P.KBhaduri, Pane! Lawyerforthe State. Shri Sudeep Aarawsi, Advocate for ths respondent No.4. (Passed on 11 •" dav of November QH^ H> ^,w ^ u • ) peti'iion, tne petitioner seeKs t"e ?oi'owing praysr; "10.1.Thai respondents No.1. 2 & 4 mav bs d!rected to supply the sdditional information to ffif pstltjoner ss per ietters dated 13.12.2008, .'?«i' 0:3 ?'.f)fl0 snrt' ^.^ nK 7nn9 within i'fmfriarf s'ff'n.a V-^i,f' W.iii^4 { •^^•w:'ifr'.t—W<y ViflisSSiS fH-S iS'-^'vS iiS i rQ psnod. 10.2. That resgondent No.3 mav be dii'ected to pass orders on the spplicat'on dated 23.06.200° fised by the petitioner for imposltion of penalty SQSlHSt ths OthBf fBSPOndBHtS fOf not sunisiylnQ the JnformatJon as psr order dsted 08.04.2009. 10.3. Th "hat an enquin' made conductecl against respondsnt N-o.2 and 4 for non-comgiiance of ordsrs by e State !nformation Commlssion and appropnate disciplinary aciion .T?sy be djrected to take aaainst them. •70.4 '0.4. Thatthe Detitsoner mav be comQensated for the harassment caused to him in monetaty terrns to a fane o/ffs.50,000/.. 0.5. Costofthe petition be aSlowed". Brief indisputable facts, as projected by the pstitioner are that the petitioner has made appiications on 5.2.2008 and 13.12.2008 to the resoondent No.2 & 4 for suDoiy of some informations under t"e orovisions of the Riaht to information Act, 2005 (for short the "^cr, ynn?i"\ ^ ''.iv'Sa: J»" ^iiS&S^^ !»• 2 ^r Being aggrieved, by non-suppiy of informations, the petitioner approached the first appellaie authority and thereafter to the respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 by order dated 8.4.2009 (Annexure P-12) imposed a cost under the provisions of Section 20(1) of the Act, 2005, with further direction to suppiy a!l th< Informations wlthin a period of one week to the petitioner. Despite clear direct'on, no information hss been supplied tiil date to ths pet'tioner. Thus, this peiltion seeking the afore-stated reiisf. ! have heard 'esrnsd counsei appearing for the partles, perused the pieadings and documents appended thereo. That for suppiy of informations on the request of public, the Centrs! Act i.e. Act, 2005 has been enacted. The Act. 2005 is a se'f contained code and it provides for redressai of al! grievances in respect of suppiy. or pon-supply of informstions. !t appesrs that despite the orders oassed bv the authoritles, the oetltloner has not been suDp'ied with a" the informations. This Court in exerclse of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Artlcle 228 o^ the Constitution of India cannot Issue a direction to the resoondent No.3 and other respondents for takina action, in accordance with iaw. Under the Drovisions of Sectlon 2D(2) of the Act, 2005, the State Information Comm'ssio" has power to ensure ^,^it the information, as directed, <s supp'ied to the appiicant seeking information. !t sppears thst the petit'oner has not approached the State information Commission for further reilef under the orovjsions of Section 20(2) of the AcS, 2005. Thus, at this stage, no reiief can be granted to the petitioner, as aforestated. Accordjngly, the writ petitlon is dlsmissed. However, iiberty is reserved to the petnioner to take recourse to appropriate forum under the provlsions of law '.e. under tne Drovisions of Act, 2005, if so advised. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihoti-i Judge