JUDGMENT Mr. 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 (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). 3. The petitioner still did not feel satisfied and filed the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned order (Annexure P-6), invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition. 5. As is evident from the record that the petitioner has challenged the impugned order (Annexure P-6) by virtue of which, his appeal was disposed of by the SIC, which in substance is as under:- “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. 2. The complainant says that the information supplied to him is not attested. They have mutually agreed to meet in the office of the latter on 14.07.2009 at 10.00 A.M. Where information supplied to him which runs into 216 sheets will be attested. 2. The complainant says that the information supplied to him is not attested. They have mutually agreed to meet in the office of the latter on 14.07.2009 at 10.00 A.M. Where information supplied to him which runs into 216 sheets will be attested. The complainant has been told that Section 2(j) defines RTI Act as public interest oriented and is not to sub-serve any narrow/personal interest of the individual. In view of the foregoing, the case is disposed of and closed. Announced in the hearing.” 6. Meaning thereby, what is not disputed here is that the entire informations sought by the petitioner have already been supplied to him. Moreover, his grievance, that the informations/documents supplied to him were not attested, has already been redressed by the SIC through the medium of 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. 7. In the light of the aforesaid reasons as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is dismissed as such. ---------------