Sanjay Kumar v. The State Information Commission Through Its Secretary Namely B.B.Pandey And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2998 of 2015 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7590 of 2015 ====================================================== Sanjay Kumar C/o Dr. Ganga Dayal Singh, residence of Mohalla Yarpur Yogia Tola, Patna- 800001, Near B.D.Evening College. .... .... Petitioner/s (in person)

Versus

1.The State Information Commission Through Its Secretary, Suchna Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna, Namely B.B.Pandey

2. Dr. Pratima, The District Magistrate -cum-Appellate authority, Patna.

3. Mr. Reyaz Ahmad Khan, The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Patna Sadar, Patna.

4. The State of Bihar Through the Principal Secretary, Home Department namely Mr. Sudhir Kumar

5. Mr. Pramod Kumar, The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Patna Sadar, Patna.

6. Mr. Bijendra Kumar Chauhan, The Officer-in-charge of Gardanibagh Police Station, Patna.

.... .... Respondent/s/Opposite Parties.

====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar (in persons) For the Respondent/s No.1 : Mrs. Binita Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Amit Kumar Anand, AC to GP-XV ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 09-12-2015 Heard the petitioner, who has appeared in person, Mrs. Binita Singh for the Opposite Party No.1 and the State. The application alleges that the officials of the State Information Commission have wilfully violated the Order dated 14.08.2015 passed in CWJC No. 7590 of 2015. It is stated that in the light of the said order a representation was filed which has also not been considered. No information has been given to the petitioner.

The writ application was dismissed observing as

Patna High Court MJC No.2998 of 2015 (2) dt.09-12-2015 2/2 under:- "Be that as it may, since a grievance has been raised by the petitioner that information were supplied belatedly for which he has already approached the respondent- Commission, this Court is not inclined to pass any Order. It is for the petitioner to pursue his application which is said to have been filed before the respondent- Commission for consideration and disposal in accordance with law.

The application is dismissed".

It, thus, appears that the relief prayed by the petitioner was declined. No positive direction was issued by this Court.

Considering the above, the present Contempt application is held misconceived/misplaced. It is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) Shyam/- U