CWP No. 20419 of 2008 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … CWP No. 20419 of 2008 Date of decision: January 25,2011 Krishan Kumar ..Petitioner. Versus Haryana Staff Selection Commission and others ..Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocte for the petitioner Mr.Narender Singh, DAG, Haryana respondent No.2. ... M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J.(Oral) The contour of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that, petitioner sought the following information from the State Public Information Officer (for brevity,”SPIO”), of Haryana Staff Selection Commission, by means of application dated 12.5.2008 (Annexure P-6), invoking the provisions of The Right to Information Act, 2005(hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act”) :- “1. Marks obtained by him in the Entrance Exam . 2. The CD/Video graphic of High Jump passed by him in third chance without shoes and straight line along with other selected candidates.” 2. The petitioner claimed that since the information was not supplied to him by the SPIO, then he approached the First Appellate Authority (for short,”FAA”), but in vain. 3. Aggrieved by the action of not supplying the information by SPIO and FAA, the petitioner filed appeal before the State Information Commissioner, CWP No. 20419 of 2008 2 Haryana (for short,”SIC”), which was disposed of vide impugned order dated 7.10.2008 (Annexure P-10) in the following manner:- “After hearing both the appellant and respondent and learning that the relevant CDs had already been destroyed as per laid down procedure of the Public Authority. It is directed that the respondent department may provide proof regarding the procedure adopted for screening and verifying the status of the appellant in physical test subsequent to his filing of the application under RTI Act and furnish a copy of the same to the Commission and appellant.” 4. The petitioner still did not feel satisfied and filed the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned order (Annexure P-10), invoking the provisions of Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, going through the record and considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the present writ petition. 6. However, the main arguments of learned counsel, that the authorities under the Act did not supply the requisite information to the petitioner, concerned officer illegally destroyed the requisite information(CD) and since the SIC failed to take any penal action against erring officer, so the impugned order is illegal, are not only devoid of merit, but misplaced as well. 7. As is evident from the record that the information ( C.Ds) sought was stated to have been destroyed as per laid down procedure of the Commission. Therefore, question of its supply did not arise at all. Moreover, the SIC has already directed the respondent-department to provide the proof, regarding the procedure adopted for screening and verifying the status of the petitioner in physical test subsequent to his filing of the application under the RTI Act and to furnish a copy to petitioner as well as Commission and that the CD and Video graphic are intellectual property and cannot be furnished to the petitioner. CWP No. 20419 of 2008 3 8. Meaning thereby, as the SIC has already adequately redressed the grievance of the petitioner, therefore, no interference is warranted in the impugned order in this relevant connection, in exercise of limited writ jurisdiction. 9. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. January 25,2011 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) nk JUDGE Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No