Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 546 (MP)

Awdhesh Kumar Pandey v. Union of India

2018-06-20

MOHD.FAHIM ANWAR, R.S.JHA

body2018
ORDER 1. Heard the petitioner in person on the question of admission. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by order dated 6.2.2018 passed by the Central Information Commission denying information to the petitioner in respect of the complaint filed by the petitioner regarding act of forgery etc., wherein the Central Information Commission has rejected the prayer for providing the information on the ground that the investigation is in progress and in case the information is disclosed, it would hamper the same. 3. The petitioner submits that the fact of commission of forgery etc. by some person in the department is established in view of the documents filed by the petitioner. It is also stated that the matter was taken up for investigation by the authorities but the same is pending and has not been completed till date and that the Central Information Commission while rejecting the petitioner’s appeal, has not taken into consideration the fact that the respondents did not furnish any reason or cogent material to indicate that the disclosure of the information to the petitioner, would in any manner vitiate, hamper or“interfere with the investigation. 4. We have heard the petitioner at length. 5. The fact stated by the petitioner appears to be borne out from the order passed by the Central Information Commission namely; that the petitioner had filed a complaint in respect of forgery and that the said complaint and other issues are pending investigation before the authorities. 6. The Central Information Commission while rejecting the appeal has taken into consideration this aspect and rejected the application filed by the petitioner seeking information in respect of the investigation on the ground that it would hamper the investigation by taking aid of section 8(1)(h) of the Right to Information Act. 7. Having perused the record and having heard the petitioner in person, we are of the considered opinion that the order passed by the Central Information Commission does not warrant any interference or call for any interference by this Court, as it does not suffer from any perversity or illegality. We are of the considered opinion that in such circumstances, the prayer made by the petitioner for directing the authorities to prosecute the person concerned cannot be allowed at this stage. 8. We are of the considered opinion that in such circumstances, the prayer made by the petitioner for directing the authorities to prosecute the person concerned cannot be allowed at this stage. 8. In the circumstances, though the petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed, taking into consideration the submissions made by the“petitioner and the facts of the case, the respondents/authorities are directed to ensure that the investigation taken up by them in the matter of forgery etc., be completed as expeditiously as possible and result thereof be communicated and informed to the petitioner immediately thereafter. 9. With the aforesaid observation, the petition filed by the petitioner stands dismissed.