IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 2446 of 2010. Date of decision: 28.7.2010 Dharam Pal ….. Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. and others …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. For the Petitioner : Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K.Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. Advocate General. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The petition has been filed with the following prayers:- (i) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to supply the information as sought by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005 as per Annexure P-1 to P-3. (ii) That writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued for quashing and setting aside the order Annexure P-6 and P-8 passed by respondents No.1 and 2 in view of the fact that 15 bighas of lad was sanctioned by the Revenue Court on 7.1.1985 to one Sh. Lachhman without jurisdiction whereas to adjudicate the matter, jurisdiction was of Divisional forest Officer, Mandi and in order to suppress the irregularities committed by the respondents, false plea that file is not traceable has been taken, which is evidence from Annexure P-5. 2 2. According to the petitioner, in view of the Annexure P-5, It is clear that information was available but same was not supplied to the petitioner, on the ground that the file was not traceable. The appeal was also without any result and thus the writ petition. It is seen from the reply that during the pendency of the writ petition record has been traced out and all information has been furnished to the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is a fit case where action under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 is to be taken by imposing appropriate penalty. If that reply is taken on its face value, any document on which the information is sought can be said to be misplaced by an employee in the establishment and reply could be filed to the effect that file is misplaced. That reply cannot be appreciated. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, particularly in view of the genuine efforts to trace out the missing file, we do not think the file was intentionally misplaced so as to deny the information to the petitioner. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to take steps to put his house in order so that instances of such kind as referred to in the writ petition are not repeated in future. (Justice Kurian Joseph) Chief Justice July 28, 2010 (Justice Kuldip Singh), (sks/grs) Judge.