Heera Singh Yadav v. State Of Chhattisgarh

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 3223 of 2021 • Heera Singh Yadav S/o Mangan Singh Yadav Aged About 42 Years Resident Of Village Darapara, Tahsil And District Bijapur Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Bijapur , District Bijapur Chhattisgarh

2. The Superintendent Of Land Record District Bijapur Chhattisgarh.

3. The Tahsildar Bijapur , District Bijapur Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Kamal Kumar Pandey, Advocate For Respondents/State :

Shri Gagan Tiwari, Dy. GA Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order 11/08/20 Heard.

1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities for not providing the information sought for by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the RTI Act, 2005') despite the order passed by the higher appellate authority.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has applied under the RTI Act, 2005 before the respondent No.3 for supply of certain information relating to date of formation of office of Deputy Registrar at Bijapur and the Collector Bijapur has directed respondent No.3 to provide information to

the petitioner and report about the compliance, which has not been done, therefore, the order may be passed by this Court.

3. Per contra learned State counsel would submit that the record would show that as per Annexure P-4 the information which is sought for is not available, therefore, it is not a case that the information has not been supplied but the kind of information which is sought for is not available as such could not be supplied.

4. On a specific query being put to learned counsel to the petitioner that under what provisions of law this Court would be an executing Court to direct the compliance of the order passed by the Collector, learned counsel for the petitioner instead of answering the same would submit that previously certain orders have been passed whereby the transfer order has been directed to be implemented.

5. Considering the nature of allegation and the documents attached to this petition, it appears that the petition is so vague and sans merit. In any case, this Court cannot act as an executing Court for order of the Collector despite the fact that certain information is not available as such could not be supplied. If the petitioner is aggrieved then he can avail the remedy available to him under the RTI Act, 2005.

6. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

S D/-Sd/- Goutam Bhaduri Judge Ashu