Parmanand Thakur v. The Union Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4203 of 2011 ====================================================== Parmanand Thakur , son on Sri Kailash Prasad Thakur, resident of Old Durga Asthan, Mithanpura Lala, P.O. Ramna, P.S. Mithanpura, District Muzaffarpur, previously residing at C/O Sri Santosh Kumar, Speaker Road, Naya Tola, Muzaffarpur .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The Union of India through Secretary Department Posts India Ministry of Communication & IT Dak Bhawan Sansarg Marg New Delhi

2. The Central Information Commission, Room No. 308, B-wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikhaji Cama Place New Delhi through the Central Information Commissioner

3. The Central Information Commissioner, the Central Information Commission, Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikhaji Cama Place New Delhi

4. the Chief Information Commissioner, The Central Information Commission, Club Building Near Post Office, Old JNU Campus, New Delhi

5. The Director Postal Services (H.Q.) & D.A.A., Meghdoot Bhawan, Patna

6. The Central Public Information Officer O/O chief Post Master General, Bihar Circle, patna

7. The Post Master General (North), Muzaffarpur. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anshuman Singh, C.G.C. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 29-06-2015 Heard Sri Vijay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anshuman Singh, learned Central Government Counsel.

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing of Annexure - 3 and 6 to the writ petition.

By Annexure - 3 the appeal preferred by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, for non -supply of certain

Patna High Court CWJC No.4203 of 2011 (5) dt.29-06-2015 2/2 information was rejected, which has been affirmed vide Annexure - 6 by the Central Information Commissioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without hearing the petitioner the order was passed.

On perusal of Annexure - 6 to the writ petition, it is evident that at the time of hearing none had appeared on behalf of the appellant. I have perused the Annexures - 3 and 6. I do not find any defect in either of the orders.

The writ petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) Praful/- U