High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPC/2886/2018dismissed

Harish Agrawal v. U.P. State Information Commission

2018-10-22Hon'Ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 2886 of 2018 • Harish Agrawal S/o Shri Gaurishankar Agrawal Aged About 40 Years R/o Ward No. 9 Janjgir, Main Road, Tahsil And Police Station Janjgir, Civil And Revenue District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. U.P. State Information Commission Through The Commissioner, 7/7A, R T I Bhawan, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lakhnow, Civil And Revenue District- Lucknow Uttar Pradesh.

2. The First Appellate Authority O/o M D , Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lakhnow, Civil and Revenue District Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh

3. The Public Information OfÏcer O/o M.D, Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lakhnow, Civil And Revenue District Lucknow Uttar Pradesh.

---- Respondent For Petitioner Mr. Paras Mani Shriwas, Advocate Order On Board By Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra 22/10/2018

1. Heard.

2. The petitioner is seeking information from the Public Information OfÏcer of Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited, who is executing a contract for construction, repair and laying of road of Guru Ghasidas University, Bilaspur.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by non-supply of information by the Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited. He is not aggrieved by the tender process or any illegality or irregularity concerning the tender. The petitioner is in fact aggrieved by non-supply of information.

4. To maintain such petition, the cause of action or any part thereof should have been accrued in the State of Chhattisgarh, however, all the respondents are residents of Lucknow and their ofÏce is also located at Lucknow.

5. Since neither the respondents are residing or their ofÏce is located in the State of Chhattisgarh nor the cause of action in relation to seeking information has accrued within the State of Chhattisgarh, the writ petition is not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction.

6. The writ petition is dismissed, as not maintainable. The petitioner may prefer a duly constituted writ petition before the jurisdictional High Court.

Sd/- (Prashant Kumar Mishra) Judge Shyna