Dismissed

Sanjay Kumar Pandey v. Chhattisgarh State Information Commission

Chhattisgarh HC7 Oct 2023WA/7/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed an intra-court writ appeal filed by an appellant aggrieved by a single judge's order in an RTI matter. The court held that the information sought by the appellant had already been supplied by the Public Information Officer, rendering the appeal devoid of merit.

What did the court decide?

The present writ appeal is dismissed as it is devoid of merit since the information sought was already supplied.

Sanjay Kumar Pandey Vs Chhattisgarh State… — RTI and Transparency | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WA No. 7 of 2018

¶5

Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Son of Late Shri Ved Prakash Pandey, Aged About 47 Years R/o Kamala Kunj, Ramkali Bada Ke Samne, Kargil Chowk, Kasturba Nagar, Sindhi Colony, Thana Civil Line, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Pin Code No. 495001.

¶6

---- Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Purana Mantralaya, Parisar, Indrawati Khand, First Floor, Shastri Chowk, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

First Appellate Officer, Office-District Education Officer, Bemetara, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

Public Information Officer, Office-Vikas Khand Shiksha Adhikari, Navagarh, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

---- Respondents

¶12

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶13

For Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, in person. For Respondents No. 2 & 3 : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Additional Advocate General.

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶15

Hon'ble Shri N.K. Chandravanshi, Judge

¶16

Judgment on Board

¶17

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶18

07.10.2023

¶19

Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, appellant in person. Also heard

¶20

Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, learned Additional Advocate General,

¶21

¶22

appearing for respondents No. 2 and 3/State.

¶23

2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant/writ petitioner against the order dated 08.11.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 2965 of 2017 ( Sanjay Kumar Pandey vs. Chhattisgarh State Information Commissioner & Others ), whereby the learned Single Judge has disposed off the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner.

¶24

3. Appellant in person submits that under the Right to Information Act, 2005 sought information or reply from the Public Information Officer Office, Development Block Education Officer, Navagarh, District Bemetara (C.G.) on two points on 05.02.2012. On not receiving the same, the first appeal was presented on 20.01.2016 before the First Appellate Officer, Office of the District Education Officer, Bemetara (C.G.). He further submits that after hearing on 17.02.2016, the First Appellate Officer passed an order to provide information to the Public Information Officer within 15 days. On noncompliance of the order of the First Appellate Officer on 18.03.2016, a second appeal was presented before the State Information Commission.

¶25

4. It is further submitted by the appellant in person that he received incomplete information sent by the Public Information Officer on 26.03.2016. Hearing was held before the State Information Commissioner on 20.01.2017 and order was passed by the Information Commissioner on the same date. This order was received by the him on 16.05.2017. In the order, it was mentioned that information has been received by the appellant and the case has been cancelled. He further submits that aggrieved by the order, he preferred a writ petition, being WPC No. 2965 of 2017 before this Court on 30.10.2017. After the hearing on 08.11.2017, by issuing a summary order to file a new application, the learned Single Judge disposed

¶26

¶27

off the case, which will be addressed in the order in question. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order in question, this writ appeal is preferred before this Court.

¶28

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for respondents No. 2 and 3 submits that the appellant has preferred the instant writ appeal being aggrieved by the order dated 08.11.2017 by which the writ petition preferred by the appellant has finally been disposed off holding that if the appellant moves a fresh application seeking certain information claimed in the application dated 05.12.2015 that will be supplied to him within 10 days from today. He further submits that from a bare perusal of the order dated 20.01.2017 which is annexed as Annexure P/1 in the writ petition passed by the respondent No. 1 as well as the records and documents filed by the appellant as Annexure P/7 in the writ petition, it would be evident that the information has duly been supplied to the appellant.

¶29

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and materials available on record.

¶30

7. Considering the submission made by the learned Additional Advocate General, we are of the opinion that the order dated 20.01.2017 (Annexure P/1 in the writ petition) passed by the respondent No. 1 as well as the records and documents filed by the appellant as Annexure P/7 in the writ petition, it would be evident that the information has duly been supplied to the appellant.

¶31

8. Accordingly, the present writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed .

¶32

Sd/- Sd/- (N.K. Chandravanshi) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶33

Brijmohan

Sanjay Kumar Pandey v. Chhattisgarh State Information Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar Pandey v. Chhattisgarh State Information Commission

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

Krishna Kumar Markam Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Steal Auth. of India Ltd. Bhilai and Anr. Vs Shailendra Thakur and Ors.

Rustam Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shashi Kumar Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Archana Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Lal Babu Singh And Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.