Single judge permitted the State Information Commission to state in its order that the compellable information under the RTI Act was supplied to the petitioner, there being no cause of action to direct the respondents to proceed further.
allowed - dismissal of the writ petition with no costs.
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.
CWP No. 323 of 2010
1
In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
CWP No. 323 of 2010
Date of decision: February 2,2011
Sukhjant Singh
..Petitioner.
Versus
State Information Commission,Punjab and another ..Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present: Mr. H.C. Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sartajr Singh Gill, DAG, Punjab for respondent No.1. Mr. R.S.Bajaj, Advocate respondent No.2. ...
Mehinder Singh Sullar , J .(Oral)
The compendium of the facts, which requires to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that the petitioner claiming himself to be as Ex. Beldar of Municipal Corporation, Bathinda (respondent No.2) moved an application dated 18.12.2008 to the Public Information Officer (for brevity,”PIO”), office of respondent No.2, seeking the entire record/ informations mentioned therein, invoking the provisions of The Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act”). The grievance of the petitioner was that as he was illegally removed from the service by the respondent No.2 , therefore, the indicated informations are required for his litigation in the courts. 2. Petitioner claimed that as the PIO did not supply any information to him, therefore, he filed the first Appeal before the First Appellate Authority (for short,”FAA”). The informations were not supplied to him, despite order of FAA
CWP No. 323 of 2010
2
(Annexure P-2), which necessitated him to file second appeal, which was disposed of by the State Information Commission (for brevity,'the SIC”) vide impugned order dated 13.7.2009( Annexure P-6).
“Present: Complainant Mr. Sukhjant Singh Khalsa, in person.
APIO, Mr. Lakhbir Singh Trikha, for the Respondent.
The representative of the Respondent says that the entire information sought by the complainant vide his application dated 18.12.2008, has been supplied to him and there is nothing more on record to give to the complainant.
In view of the foregoing, the case is disposed of and closed. Announced in the hearing.”
CWP No. 323 of 2010
3
impugned order. In this manner, no cause of action survives in this relevant connection to direct the respondents, in exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction
of this Court.
instant writ petition is dismissed as such.
Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petitioner has any cause of action to challenge the SIC order when the sought information was already supplied and the attestation grievance was redressed.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sukhjant Singh
State Information Commission, Punjab
Municipal Corporation, Bathinda
Mehender Singh Sullar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
