Manohar Lal v. State Of Haryana & ORS

CWP No. 10031 of 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP No. 10031 of 2014 Date of decision : 06.10.2017 Manohar Lal ....Petitioner V/s State Information Commissioner, Haryana & ors. ....Respondents BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

Present:

Mr. V.K. Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Jindal, Addl. A.G. Hry.

RAJAN GUPTA J.

Challenge has been posed in this petition to order dated 21.10.2013 passed by State Information Commissioner, Haryana. It has been urged before the court that incorrect and incomplete information has been supplied to petitioner by responsent no. 3 in response to application filed by him under the Act. He submits that State Information Commissioner disposed of the case prior to its fixed date and passed the order without giving any reasonable opportunity of hearing to him. Plea has been refuted by learned State counsel. He submits that complete information has already been furnished to the petitioner.

It appears that petitioner moved an application before respondent no. 3 for supply of information under RTI Act regarding details of total expenditure spent by CHC Gopi in the year 2011-2012 on four points. On receipt of said application, information was furnished to the petitioner on 25.03.2013. As he was not satisfied with the information supplied, he filed an appeal before the first appellate authority i.e. Ajay Kumar 2017.11.04 12:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CWP No. 10031 of 2014 respondent no. 2. Pursuant to same, respondent no. 3 again furnished the requisite information to petitioner on 25.06.2013. Dis-satisfied with the information supplied, he filed an appeal before the State Information Commission, Haryana. Said authority after perusing the record directed SPIO to furnish the copy of report of Sub Divisional Engineer, Charkhi Dadri to petitioner. In find no infirmity with the order. It appears that requisite information has been supplied to the petitioner. His plea that same is incomplete is not backed by any tangible proof. The plea that order needs to be set-aside as State Commission heard the matter on a date preponed by it is without any substance. It appears that matter has been decided in favour of the petitioner. He can have no grievance in this regard. Petition is, thus, without any merit and is hereby dismissed.

October 06, 2017 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No Ajay Kumar 2017.11.04 12:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document