Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1367 (PNJ)

Rohit Thakran v. State of Haryana

2019-05-06

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

body2019
Judgment Mr. Augustine George Masih, J. (Oral):- Petitioner has approached this Court by alleging that complete information, as sought under the Right to Information Act vide application dated 11.01.2018 (Annexure P-1), has not been supplied by the respondents. In the said application, the petitioner has sought information whether the licence of Mustil No.17, Killa No.10/1 (0-18), Village Adampur, Tehsil and District Gurugram, has been issued or not. However, when the said information was not supplied to the petitioner, he approached the State Information Commission, Haryana, who, vide order dated 21.09.2018 directed the State Public Information Officer to provide licence number and the order of licence issued to M/s Unitech Limited, Sector 50, Gurugram. 2. In pursuance of the said order, the SPIO-cum-District Town Planner, Gurgaon, vide communication dated 31.10.2018 (Annexure P-5) has provided the complete copy of the licence, which has been issued to M/s Unitech Investments Ltd., Unitech House, 27 Community Centre, New Delhi, for setting up residential colony at Village Adampur and Tigra, District Gurgaon. The said document has been appended as Annexure P-6. Petitioner contends that in the reply, which has been initially submitted by the Information Officer, Town Country Planning, Gurugram, dated 05.02.2018 (Annexure P-2), it was mentioned that some part of Khasra No.17//10/1 (0-18), Village Adampur, has been included in the licence whereas in the licence, which has been supplied to him alongwith the detail of the land in question, there is no such mention. The petitioner then again approached the State Information Commission by filing an application dated 14.01.2019 under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which has been responded to vide communication dated 06.03.2019 (Annexure P-8) by stating that the information, which has been supplied by the SPIO vide letter dated 30.10.2018 (Annexure P-5) alongwith licence (Annexure P-6), is self explanatory and does not require any further order from the Commission. She further contends that the information, as has been supplied vide order dated 05.02.2018 (Annexure P-2), when compared with licence, Annexure P-6, the same does not tally and, therefore, there appears to be contradiction. She, therefore, contends that the information as sought for by the petitioner has not been supplied to him. 3. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and with her assistance have gone through the records of the case. 4. She, therefore, contends that the information as sought for by the petitioner has not been supplied to him. 3. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and with her assistance have gone through the records of the case. 4. As per the orders passed by the State Information Commission, the SPIO-cum-District Town Planner, Gurugram, vide communication dated 31.10.2018 (Annexure P-5) has supplied the complete information relating to Licence No.50 of 1995 (Annexure P-6). Alongwith the said licence a document is attached, giving the land details, which is the subject matter of the licence. The grievance of the petitioner is that the document attached alongwith the licence does not include the portion of Khasra NO.17//10/1 (0-18), Village Adampur. If that is the case, since the complete information, in the considered view of this Court, has been supplied to the petitioner, he may proceed further in accordance with law, if aggrieved, as the respondents could only supply the details with regard to the licence, which has been sanctioned and granted to M/s Unitech Investment Ltd., which they did. 5. In view of the above, finding no ground to interfere in the orders passed by the State Information Commission, the present petition stands dismissed.