This order disposes of the writ petition in the motion stage without looking into the merits of the controversy after accepting the counsel's contention that the relevant office did not function at the relevant time.
Petitioner directed to file a fresh application under RTI Act before the Chief Magistrate Judicial, Pasighat.
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.
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC040007972020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH)
Case No. : WP(C) 315/2020
1:Batem Pertin
S/o Dongom Pertin, Kiyit village, PO Mebo, PS Pasighat, East Siang District, AP present resident of Mirbuk village, Opposite Pasight Batist Church, PO Pasighat, East Siang District, AP
VERSUS
1:ARUNACHAL PRADESH INFORMATION COMMISSION
represented by Secretary, Arunachal Pradesh State Information Commission, Opposite to State Legislative Assembly, PO Itanagar, Papumpare District, AP
2:The Public Information Officer cum Chief Judicial Magistrate Pasighat East Siang District A
Advocate for the Petitioner : Tabit Tapak
Advocate for the Respondent : Rintu Saikia
BEFORE
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
ORDER
Date : 18-11-2020
Heard the learned counsel Mr. T. Tapak, appearing for the petitioner and also heard Mr. R. Saikia, the learned Standing Counsel (Arunachal Pradesh State Information Commission) for respondent No.1.
Page No.# 2/2
On 22.10.2018, the petitioner had filed an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pasighat under RTI Act, seeking some information. The application filed was not responded and therefore, the petitioner had to go up to the State Information Commissioner, Arunachal Pradesh where the petitioner did not get any result either.
Mr. R. Saikia, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that in the year 2018, there was no permanent office of Chief Judicial Magistrate at Pasighat and so, the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Aalo used to come to the Pasighat to dispose of criminal cases with the help of the staff of the Additional District Judge. Mr. R. Saikia, the learned Standing Counsel has also submitted that since, there was no permanent office of Chief Judicial Magistrate at Pasighat at the relevant time, there cannot be any question of giving any information which was non-existent at the time.
According to Mr. R. Saikia, the learned Standing Counsel, the office of the Chief Judicial Magistrate has been established at Pasighat and it is now functioning.
Considering this fact, I have decided to dispose of the writ petition today. The petitioner is directed to file a fresh application under RTI Act before the Chief Magistrate Judicial, Pasighat. And PIO-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pasighat shall dispose his application in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act. With this observation, the instant writ petition is disposed of in motion stage.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the non-supply of information under the RTI Act consumed during the pendency of the petitioner's complaint.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Batem Pertin
Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission
Parthivjyoti Saikia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
