DR SUNIL TARAN Vs. MADHYA PRADESH STATE INFORMATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on admission. Petitioner has filed present petition seeking direction to the respondent to decide the application for review dated 12.6.2017 (Annexure P/11) to reconsider the order dated 21.4.2017 in accordance with law.

(2.) According to the petitioner, he is practicing Doctor at Betul and has constructed his house besides the road. The Nagar Palika Parishad has constructed a three-feet thick road near petitioner's house, because of which entire drainage water started entering inside the house. Petitioner submitted an application under the provisions of the Right to Information Act , 2005 (for short 'the RTI Act ') for supplying the information/documents in relation to construction of road to the Public Information Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad Betul. Vide letter dated 24.7.2015, the petitioner was directed to inspect the file so that necessary documents can be supplied to him.

(3.) According to the petitioner, he appeared in the office of Public Information Officer on 25.7.2015 but the documents were not provided to him. Thereafter, he preferred an appeal to the Deputy Director, Department of Urban Administration & Development, Madhya Pradesh who is an Appellate Authority under the RTI Act . The Appellate Authority issued notices to the petitioner and Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad Betul for appearance on 28.9.2015 at 02:15 PM. On an oral instructions given by the Appellate Authority, the Nagar Palika Parishad, Betul has supplied him certain documents but, according to him, they were incomplete and incorrect. The petitioner made an application before the Appellate Authority to the effect that suitable action be taken against the person concerned for not supplying of correct information. Thereafter, petitioner has filed second appeal before the State Information Commission. He appeared on 21.4.2017 and submitted his grievance of not supplying him the documents within a period of thirty days from the date of application i.e. on 25.6.2015. The Commission has passed the order on 21.4.2017 disposing the appeal that information sought by the petitioner has already been supplied to him on 24.7.2015. Being dissatisfied with the order dated 21.4.2017, the petitioner has submitted a representation dated 2.6.2017 to the State Commission i.e. second Appellate Authority, that the appeal be heard again and the order dated 21.4.2017 be reconsidered. He has sent the representation by way of Registered Post, followed by reminder dated 12.7.2017. And, thereafter, filed present petition before this Court.