The Hon'ble Court disposed of a writ petition filed by Sri Nawal Kishore Sharma seeking directions to a respondent authority and for information on actions taken on a complaint. The court deemed the petition not inclined for entertainment despite reviewing submissions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 40 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 35344 of 2022 Petitioner :- Nawal Kishore Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Kant Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Alok Mishra,Kunal Ravi Singh Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Heard Sri K.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Standing Counsel for State respondent no.1; Sri Kunal Ravi Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and Sri Alok Mishra, learned counsel for respondent nos.3 and 4.
Present writ petition is preferred seeking following principal reliefs:-
"i. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent authority to take appropriate action on the complaint filed by the petitioner.
ii. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authority to provide information about the action taken on the complaint of the petitioner within stipulated period of time as prescribed by this Hon'ble Court to meet with end of justice."
Sri Kunal Ravi Singh and Sri Alok Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents have raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner is in fact aggrieved by an order dated 25.3.2022 passed by the State Information Commissioner. Present writ petition is preferred in the month of November, 2022, whereas the order has been passed by the State Information Commissioner on 25.3.2022 but till date the same has not been challenged. In case he is still aggrieved, he can invoke the remedy as available in Rule 12 of Right to Information Rules, 2015.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition.
Needless to say that in case the petitioner is still aggrieved, he can invoke the remedy as available in law.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 8.2.2023 RKP
Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Nawal Kishore Sharma
State Of U.P.
Respondent no.2
Respondent no.3
Respondent no.4
Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Vivek Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
