Disposed

Satpal Singh Saluja v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC8 Jul 2022WPC/1984/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging denial of RTI, the court husbanded from adjudicating merits due to a pending Second Appeal before the Information Commissioner. The petition was disposed of by directing Commission to conclude the appeal within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent No.2 to ensure the pending Second Appeal be concluded within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

Satpal Singh Saluja Vs State of Chhattisgarh — RTI and Transparency | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

-1-

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

Writ Petition (C) No. 1984 of 2022

¶5

1. Satpal Singh Saluja S/o Late Devendra Singh Saluja Aged About 50 Years R/o Behind Tahsil Office, Manendragarh, District Korea Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---Petitioner(s)

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary , Revenue Department , Mantralaya , Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶9

2. State Information Commissioner C.G. State Information Commission , Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶10

3. First Appellate Authority O/o Collector Baikunthpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh.

¶11

4. The Surperintendent Of Land Records Cum Information Officer Baikunthpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh.

¶12

---Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner	:	Shri Prafull Bharat, Sr. Advocate along with Shri Tanmay Thomas, Advocate.
For Respondent/State	:	Shri Pawan Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer.
For Respondent No.2	:	Shri Shyam Sundar Lal Tekchandani, Advocate.

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board

¶15

08.07.2022

¶16

1. The grievance of the petitioner is that the application for grant of certain information under Right to Information Act has not been provided to the petitioner and that the stand of the respondents is that the information cannot be made available to the petitioner since it is one which falls under the exempted category under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act.

¶17

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the order of the Public Information Officer as also by the First Appellate Authority, they have already preferred a Second Appeal and though more than six months have passed the Second Appeal till date has not yet been decided.

¶18

3. Considering the fact that the Second Appeal of the petitioner stands pending before the respondent No.2, this court at this juncture would not like to go into the merits of the case, rather ends of justice would meet if

¶19

-2-

¶20

the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent No.2 to ensure that the Second Appeal that the petitioner has preferred as early as on 13.01.2022 be proceeded and concluded within an outer limit of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶21

4. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

(P. Sam Koshy) Judge

¶24

inder

Satpal Singh Saluja v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satpal Singh Saluja v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bank of Baroda Vs Municipal Corporation Bhilai

Ram Avatar Suryavanshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Neelam Devi Vs Union of India

Smt. Deepmala Manhar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vijay Kumar Tripathi Vs Union of India

Veer Projects, Engineers and Contractor Vs State of Chhattisgarh