Goverdhan Prasad Gourha v. Chhattisgarh State Information Commission

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 468 of 2016 Goverdhan Prasad Gourha S/o Late Shri Vrinda Prasad Gourha, Aged About 53 Years R/o Pedravan, Tahsil Bilaigarh, Revenue And Civil District Baloda BazarBhatapara, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Through The Chief Information Commissioner, Old Mantralaya ( D.K.S. Bhawan), Indravati Khand, First Floor, Shastri Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

2. Collector, Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, (Chhattisgarh)

3. Public Information Officer, O/o Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Bilaigarh, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, (Chhattisgarh)

4. Secretary (Public Information Officer), Gram Panchayat, Pendravan, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri I.S. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No.1.

:

Shri Shyam Tekchandani, Advocate For Respondents No.2 to 4 :

Shri B. Gopkumar Dy.A.G S.B.:

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 19/02/2016 Heard.

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by order dated 5.3.2015 passed by the State Information Commissioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Public Information Officer of Gram Panchayat is not providing relevant information to the petitioner by

suppressing the records and making false claim that the concerned register was not given under his charge. He submits that in these circumstances, the Commission ought to have allowed the appeal of the petitioner and directed the departmental inquiry to be done against the responsible officials, imposed penalty and also paid compensation to the petitioner.

3. The order passed by the Information Commissioner and letter dated 4.6.2015 of the Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat, Bilaigarh as also letter dated 10.7.2012 of the Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Pendravan, reveal that the Public Information Officer has come out with the reply that relevant records was not given in his charge. The Chief Executive Officer has also issued notice. Therefore, at this stage, no further orders are required to be passed under the provision of Right to Information Act.

4. Depending upon the result of inquiry that may be made and action that may be taken by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Bilaigarh, the petitioner would be at liberty to take further remedy in accordance with law.

5. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Praveen