Krishna Ram Koshma v. Chhattisgarh State Information Commission

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 860 of 2017 Krishna Ram Koshma S/o Late Manglu Ram, Aged About 62 Years R/o. Pocket- I, Block No. 11, Qtr. No. B, Maroda Sector, Bhilai, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Through : State Information Commissioner, Office At Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

2. First Appellate Authority And Additional Collector, Balod, District Balod (Chhattisgarh).

3. Public Information Officer, District Office, Durg, District Durg (Chhattisgarh).

4. Public Information Officer, District Office, Balod, District Balod (Chhattisgarh).

5. Collector, Durg, District Durg, (Chhattisgarh)

6. Collector, Balod, District Balod (Chhattisgarh).

7. Sub Divisional Officer & Public Information Officer, Doundilohar, District Balod (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents Shri Praveen Dhurandhar, counsel for the petitioner/s. Shri Sangharsh Pandey, Dy.G.A. for the State / respondents on advance copy. Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 07/04/2017 The petitioner has filed this petition aggrieved on account of non-supply of information despite the order passed by the State Information Commission on 27/08/2014.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had sought certain information and supply of relevant revenue documents from the Public Information Officer. When the relevant information was not supplied, the petitioner filed an appeal and went up to Information Commission. The Commissioner

directed the Collector, Durg and Collector, Balod to provide necessary information by tracing records which is found to be missing. It is submitted that till date, no such information has been supplied to the petitioner. 3.

After going through the order passed by the State Information Commission, it is found that at the time when the order was passed, information before the Commissioner was that relevant records were not transferred from Durg to Balod. The Commissioner directed that the records be traced and relevant information be supplied. The petitioner again approached the State Information Commission raising grievance that despite order, information has not been supplied. The Commissioner passed an order on 21/09/2015 observing that despite the order of the Information Commission, there was negligence on the part of the responsible authorities in collecting relevant information and supplying the same. Taking note of the fact that the record was not traceable, the Commissioner had again issued a direction to the Collector, Durg to make available relevant information regarding the Public Information Officer and In-Charge, revenue records, district office, Durg. 4.

It, therefore, appears that till date, information could not be made available to the petitioner on the ground that relevant records are missing from the record room. In this situation, when the records are missing, the Commissioner may be approached to take suitable action against those, who are responsible for nonsupply of the information. 5.

Except above, no other direction can be issued. The petition is accordingly disposed off.

Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Deepti