Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 599 (ALL)

MOHD. UNUS v. STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER, U. P. GOVERNMENT

2013-02-21

BHARAT BHUSHAN, SUNIL AMBWANI

body2013
JUDGMENT By the Court.—We have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the State respondents. 2. The petitioner has made an application under (The) Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short, the Act) seeking information with regard to the expenditures made by the Village Pradhan of Gram Hatawa, Tehsil Mehadawal, District Sant Kabir Nagar on various developmental activities and Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Guarantee Scheme. It is alleged that the information has not been provided within the time stipulated in the Act. The petitioner has filed an appeal in the State Information Commission, which is pending. 3. By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a direction commanding the respondents to provide the required information as contained in Annexure 1 to the writ petition by disposing of the application dated 19.9.2012. 4. The petitioner is already pursuing his application seeking information under the Act. If the information has not been provided, adequate remedies are provided under the Act to take steps and to impose penalties against the Central/Public Information Officer. 5. A writ petition for a direction to provide the information in view of the remedies provided under the Right to Information Act is not ordinarily maintainable. We may further observe that though the Act does not provide for bona fides of the person to seek information, when a person seeks any direction from this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the Court may, before issuing any writ, make such enquiries. 6. In the present case, we are not satisfied with the bona fides of the petitioner seeking information. There are detailed provisions under U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 to make complaints and for enquiries. The application in such case has to be filed in prescribed proforma supporting by the affidavit of the complainant. The Courts do not ordinarily aid or abet the complainants in making fishing and roving enquries in collecting material to make out the case against the public authorities or persons holding elected office. 7. The writ petition is dismissed. ——————