TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 1240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner-SPIO to supply the information free of charges, vide impugned order - Decided against Petitioner. - W.P. (C) No. 3964 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 7-1-2011 - Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. Shri Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Shri Kirti Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the Respondent. ORDER The conspectus of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that Jai Singh son of Atma Ram (Respondent No. 2) filed an application (Annexure P2/T) before the petitioner-State Public Information Officer (for brevity petitioner-SPIO )-cum-Sarpanch of village Silikalan, for seeking informat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Annexure P10). 4. Again instead of complying with the order of SIC, petitioner-SPIO filed the instant petition, challenging the impugned order (Annexure P10). 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this context. 6. Ex facie, the main celebrated argument of the learned counsel that there is no provision under the Act/Rules, vide which, the SIC can direct the petitioner-SPIO to supply the information free of costs to Respondent No. 2, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 7. What is not disputed here is that Respondent No. 2 filed an applicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsu deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances. 11. There is another aspect of the matter, which can be viewed from a different angle. As indicated earlier, the SIC, vide impugned order, has only directed the petitioner-SPIO to supply the information, in view of the provisions of Section 7(6) of the Act and nothing else has been decided against him. To me, such direction contained in the impugned order cannot possibly be set aside, while exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, unless the same is perverse and without jurisdiction. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out in the impugned order by the learned c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
