Himachal Pradesh High Court
Hira Nand Sharma vs . State Of H.P. & Ors. on 16 March, 2022
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Hira Nand Sharma Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.
.
CWP No. 2705/202116.03.2022 Present: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. H.C. Sharma & Mr. Tejasvi Dogra, Advocates, for the petitioner.
Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate General with Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3.
Ms. Bipin C. Negi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No.4 & 5.
CMP No.2336/2022This application has been filed by the applicant/petitioner under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is contended that the petitioner under Right to Information Act demanding information as per the application dated 15.10.2020. The Public Information Officer of the respondent-department did not furnish the information as per Annexure P-12 by citing the pendency of the present matter before this Court. The petitioner then filed an appeal against the aforesaid order, which was also disposed of by the appellate authority on the ground that the matter is subjudice before this Court, thus the desired information could not be provided. Thereafter, a review petition against the aforesaid order has been filed, which was also dismissed.
Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that the petitioner is delaying the disposal of the matter by not filing the rejoinder on the ground that the information desired under the RTI Act has not been provided to him.
::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2022 20:11:40 :::CISWe make it clear that respondent-department could not take shelter of the interim order passed by this .
Court on 29.04.2021 in refusing to supply the information.
From the perusal of the aforesaid Annexure P-12, it is transpired that the basic information, which the petitioner was demanding from the respondent-department, was whether the project has been considered and approved under the rules laid down by the Government of H.P. or Eco-Tourism Policy.
Even though, learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that the answer to this question lies in their submissions in paragraphs No.7 & 9 of the reply to the writ petition, but the respondents have to make a categorical statement.
In view of the above, learned Additional Advocate General is directed to file a specific affidavit within one week to give a categorical answer as to whether the project in question is covered by Eco-Toursim Policy or not.
Respondent-State is also directed to provide desired information sought for by the petitioner to this Court, by supplying an advance copy to the learned counsel for the petitioner, within the aforesaid time, so that, the matter may be heard and decided at an early date. We also accord last opportunity to the petitioner to file rejoinder to the writ petition, if he so desires, within a period of one week thereafter.
Matter to come up on 31.03.2022.
::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2022 20:11:40 :::CISIt is made clear that no further time shall be granted to the petitioner to file the rejoinder.
.
( Mohammad Rafiq ) Chief Justice ( Jyotsna Rewal Dua ) Judge 16th March, 2022(Rohit/vs) ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2022 20:11:40 :::CIS