'<^ ^o HKMI CQURT QF CHHAmSGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition (Q No. 3086 of2007 Petitioner Ramesh Kumar Agrawal, S/o Late Shri Jaiiuiarayaadas Agrawal, aged about 55 yrs, R/o Jaa. Chetna Satyam Kiinj, Naya Ganj Raigarh (C.G.) Versus Respondents 1. Chliatdsgarh State Infonnation Commissiou, tfarough the Chief Informatioa Commissioner, Shankar Nagar, Rayur (C.G.) The Public Information OflEicer & Divisional Forest OflScer, Divisional Forest OfBce, Raigarh (C.G.) The First Appellate Aufhority & Conservator ofForest, ForestCirck, Bflaspiir (C.G.) The Under Secretary, State luforDnation Comiiussion, Shaukar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 2. 3. 4. WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri Neelkaafh Matviya, Advocate for the petitioner. O RD E R (orall (Passed on this 7*h day ofjuty, 20)9) Heard. 1. The petitioner has ffled ttus petition against ttie order dated 31.10.2006 (Annexure P/l), passed by the Chliattisgarh In&nnation Conunission, Raipur. 2. Brief facts, in nutsheU, are fhat on 30.5.2006 fhe petitioxier filed au appUcation before the respondent No.2 for supply crf certain. documents under fhe R^ht to Informatioa Act, 2005. Siace the required iaformation was not provided to fhe petitioner wifhia fhe stlpulated period, the petitioner filed first appeal before fhe respondent No.3. The respoDdent No.3 by order dated 29.8.2006 (Annexure P/7) directed fhe respondent No.2 to fumish fhe reqiured infonaatiou/documents to Ae petitioner. As fhe requircd information/documente were not Thakur supplied to fhe petitioncr, he filed a second appeal before the State iDfonnatiou Coiiunission. On second appeal, by orier dated 31.10.2006 (Annexure P/l) fhe respondcnt No.2 has been directed to furaish fhe required information/documeate to fhe petitioner within 15 days. It was fiirther directed that if soiae records are not available, adequate action inay be taken aad file inay be recoustructed so that iufoi-matiDn can be suppUed to fhfi petitioner. According to learaed counsel appeariag for the pctitfoner, siace the required information/documents has not been suppHed to the pctitioner thus, the petitioner has fited fhte petition for quashii^ ofthe order dated 31.10.2006 (AnncxuTG p/1). There is no adverse order against fhe petitiocffir, rather it is a positwe direction for suppty of the required information to tfae petitloner, thus, ao question of quashing of tte order dated 31.10.2006 anses. Ifthe required information is not suppUed to fhe petitioner, he inay be weU advised to approach fhe concemed authorily aad take appropriate steps for coaipUancs ofthe order, ia accordaace wifh law. In view of the foregoiag, I do not fiad auy substaacc in this wnt petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismisscd. No order as to costs. However, in the iaterest of justfce liberty is reserved to fhe petitioner to take appropriate steps, in accordance with law, ifso advised. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge