S K CHATURVEDI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to update their website in accordance with all the requirements specified in Section 4 (1) (b) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short "the RTI Act, 2005") and file compliance report; further to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.2 to supply all the information asked for in the application dated 20.09.2011 (Annexure - P/2) for the petitioner free of charge in view of Section 7 (6) of the RTI Act, 2005; and to direct respondent No.1 to produce before the High Court all the relevant records evidencing compliance of guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan1.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 are not being implemented by the State in its true perspective. In the case of respondent department, even after lapse of six years from the enactment of the RTI Act, 2005, the authorities have failed to discharge the obligation set under Section 4 (1) (b) read with Section 4 (2) of the RTI Act, 2005 under which it is required that all the information stipulated under Section 4 (1) (b) be published within 120 days of enactment and to connect with the internet so that easy access to information is enabled to public. The petitioner, on viewing the website of the General Administration Department of the State, could not find all the information required to be published and connected to internet, as specified under Sections 4 (1) (b) (vi), 4 (1) (b) (xiv) and 4 (1) (b) (xv) of the RTI Act, 2005. The petitioner has also preferred an application under Section 6 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 on 20.09.2011 (Annexure P/2) seeking various information but till date, no information has been provided to the petitioner. The petitioner is further aggrieved by the action of the State authorities whereby the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Vishaka (supra), in regard to prevent sexual harassment at work place, has also not been implemented.

(3.) INITIALLY, learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission of the Court to convert this petition to a PIL, as it was ordered on 2.1.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application (I.A.No.2) seeking permission of withdrawal of his submission of conversion of the instant writ petition to PIL.