C. G. State Co Operative Marketing Federation Limited v. Sanjay Kumar Sharma

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No.1201 of 2017 C.G. State Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited, Through the Secretary, 880, Civil Lines, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Near Chemist Bhawan, Naila, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

2. C.G. State Information Commission, Raipur (C.G.) ---- Respondents AND Writ Petition (C) No.1218 of 2017 C.G. State Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited, Through the Secretary, 880, Civil Lines, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Near Chemist Bhawan, Naila, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

2. C.G. State Information Commission, Raipur (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Petitioner:

Mr. Prafull Bharat, Advocate.

For Respondent No.1: Mr. Saurabh Dangi, Advocate. For Respondent No.2: Mr. Shyam Sunder Lal Tekchandani, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 22/09/2017

1. Since common question of law and fact is involved in both these petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the State Information Commission is absolutely unjustified in dwelling upon the issue after the information was supplied to respondent No.1 on 6-9-2013. He would also submit that there was no need to adjudicate on merits once the information has been provided by the

petitioner to respondent No.1 and as such the order passed by the State Information Commission deserves to be set aside on this ground alone.

3. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that relevant information sought for has already been supplied to respondent No.1 on 6-9-2013.

4. However, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission would support the impugned order.

5. The fact remains that the first appellate authority passed order providing for certain information which was not provided and thereafter, appeal was preferred on 31-7-2013 and during the pendency of appeal, necessary information was supplied on 6-92013 as such, there was no occasion for the State Information Commission to further dwell upon the dispute on merits and dispute upon other issues.

6. In view of the above, since information was already provided to respondent No.1 and he is satisfied, there was no necessity for the State Information Commission to adjudicate upon the issue on merits.

7. As a fallout and consequence of aforesaid discussion, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petitions are allowed to the extent indicated herein-above leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). The issue raised, if any, will be considered and decided by this Court in appropriate proceeding and it is left open. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Soma