Civil Writ Petition No. 18080 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No. 18080 of 2009 Date of Decision: 26.11.2009 Rajneesh …Petitioner Versus Chief Information Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Sunil Polist, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Respondent No.3 approached respondent No.2 for giving the requisite information. During course of proceedings, it came to light that the application of which, the information was sought was lost by respondent No.2. Respondent No.3 approached the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority agreed to the request made by respondent No.2 that the application lost can be reconstructed in case respondent No.3 give another application. Grievance of the petitioner is that this course should not be adopted by the Information Commissioner in appeal as it was beyond his jurisdiction. Counsel further submits that as a result of giving a subsequent application, case FIR No. 646 dated 20.11.2008 under Section 506 IPC has been registered against the petitioner and his wife. Counsel further submits that in this FIR, charges have already been framed against the petitioner and his wife. Civil Writ Petition No. 18080 of 2009 2 Respondents No.2 and 3 before the Appellate Authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005, agreed to resolve the dispute amicably. Respondent No.3 could always submit second, third or any application to the Authorities for registration of case. If on subsequent application of respondent No.3, case has been registered, it cannot be said that impugned order suffer from any infirmity. Petitioner has a remedy to assail the consequential act i.e. registration of FIR. Hence, no interference is warranted in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge November 26, 2009 “DK”