High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPC/649/2016dismissed

Rajan Singh Chouhan v. Commissioner

2016-04-22Hon'Ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava2 pages

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 649 of 2016 Rajan Singh Chouhan S/o Shri S.P. Singh Chouhan, Aged About 39 Years R/o New B Type 09/248, Post Kurasiya Colliery, Chirmiri, District Koria Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Commissioner, State Information Commission, Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. Mr. B.S. Dhruw, Aged About 53 Years Superintendent Of Police, District Koria Chhattisgarh

3. Sanjay Kumar Dhruw, City Superintendent Of Police Civil Line Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

4. Mr. Junas Bada, S.D.O.P. Manpur, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh

5. Vijay Singh Thakur, Aged About 40 Years Station House Officer, Police Station Bango, District Korba Chhattisgarh

6. Shivendra Rajput, Aged About 35 Years Station House Officer, P.S. Chirmiri, District Koria Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Raghavendra Verma, Advocate For Respondent 1 :

Shri Shyam Tekchandani, Advocate S.B.:

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 22/04/2016

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by order dated 12.10.2015 by which the respondent-State Information Commission has declined to take any action against the Station House Officer/Public Information

-2Officer.

2. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that despite a clear endorsement of the Postman that S.H.O. has refused to receive the notice, no action has been taken. It is submitted that the State Information Commission has committed perversity in raising doubt over the veracity of the report of the Postman on the basis of endorsement with regard to report dated 26.6.2012, 28.6.2012 and 27.9.2012.

3. This Court directed the original records to be produced before this Court. I have perused the records. The records contained unserved envelope which not only contain endorsement of refusal on 23.6.2012, but many other endorsement regrading there being a lock in the premises. It is not clear whether it refers to the house of the SHO or the police station. On this ground, Information Commission has chosen not to rely upon the report and to take any action against the Public Information Officer. I am not inclined to interfere with the subjective satisfaction of the State Information Commission based on records which does not appear to be perverse or contrary to clear endorsement contained in the records.

4. The petition has no merit. The same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Praveen