← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPC/564/2016disposed off

Jeevan Lal Tandan v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2016-03-02Hon'Ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 564 of 2016 Jeevan Lal Tandan S/o Tularam Tandan, Aged About 47 Years Occupation Agriculturist, R/o. Nayagaon, New Rajdhani, P.S. Rakhi, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through : The Secretary, Revenue Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

2. Collector, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh)

3. Soumil Choubey, First Appellate Officer & Sub Divisional Officer, Bhatapara, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh)

4. Gautam Pradhan, Public Information Officer, Office Of Tahsildar, Simga, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh)

5. Patwari, Patwari Halka No. 19, Village Mohbhatha, Revenue Circle Jaroud, Tahsil Simga, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents Smt. Hamida Siddiqui, counsel for the petitioner/s/ Shri B.Gopa Kumar, Dy.A.G. for the State.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 02/03/2016 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite order of various authorities including Information Commissioner passed on 04/02/2015 and petitioner having already submitted necessary fee as demanded, documents/information are not being supplied. 2.

After going through the documents on record, particularly the order of the State Information Commission passed on 04/02/2015, I find that there is a direction to the Public Information Officer to provide information required by the petitioner within 10 days.

3.

The petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of a direction. It is unfortunate that despite order of the Information Commissioner, petitioner is driven to this Court to seek direction for supply of necessary information / documents.

4.

Respondent No.4 / Public Information Officer should immediately supply necessary information to the petitioner as demanded by him in his application. The petitioner would be at liberty to apply to the Information Commissioner for imposition of penalty on the erring officials and the Commission shall examine the matter also in accordance with the provisions of law.

5.

With the aforesaid observations, the petition is finally disposed off. Sd/- ( Manindra Mohan Shrivastava ) Judge Deepti