In present petition, the petitioner has prayed that:- “7(B) Your Lordships be pleased to issue writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing respondents to act according to the established principles of law and direct to provide all detail information as per his application on dtd. 19/1/2011 as free of costs.”
2. In support of the relief prayed for in present petition, the petitioner has stated that he preferred an application dated 9.11.2011 before the respondent no.1 and asked for certain information and data. The petitioner has also averred that in response to the said application, the respondent no.1 gave a reply vide letter dated 24.1.2011 and asked the petitioner to deposit Rs.10,000/-. It appears that the respondent no.1 also forwarded a reminder to the petitioner vide communication dated 31.1.2011. It appears that on 17.2.2011, the petitioner forwarded a letter to the respondent no.1 stating, inter alia, that on 17.2.2011, i.e. the date on which the petitioner was asked to remain present for inspection of record, the office was closed due to holiday. Then, the petitioner has alleged that subsequently, the respondent no.1 informed him vide letter dated 8.4.2012 that his application was closed.
Thereafter, the petitioner approached the first appellate authority under the provisions of Right to Information Act by filing an application, which was registered as Appeal No.18 of 2011. The hearing was scheduled for 6.4.2011, but respondent no.1, according to the petitioner's allegation, did not remain present. The hearing was rescheduled to 11.4.2011 and subsequently to 24.5.2011. The first appellate authority allowed the appeal preferred by present petitioner and directed the respondent no.1 to provide necessary information as asked for by the applicant in his application. The petitioner has alleged that despite such order by the appellate authority, any information has not been supplied by the respondent no.1.
It appears that subsequently, the petitioner upon being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent no.1 addressed a letter to the respondent no.2 who, appears to have again asked the respondent no.1 to provide information.
It appears that despite the said direction by the appellate authority, the respondent no.1 has not supplied the requisite information to the petitioner.
In this view of the matter, the petitioner has approached the respondent no.3 by way of Second Appeal, which is registered as Appeal No.4706 of 2012. It appears that in the said appeal proceedings, the respondent no.3 has directed the respondent no.1 to provide details to the petitioner. The petitioner has claimed and alleged that even after such directions, the respondent no.1 has yet not supplied any details to the petitioner.
With the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has preferred present petition and prayed for above quoted relief.
3. From the details mentioned in the petition and the submissions made by the learned advocate for the petitioner, it appears that the appeal filed by the petitioner before the respondent no.1 and subsequent application filed by the petitioner before the respondent no.3 are pending. Therefore, the petition does not deserve to be entertained.
4. The Act is a complete Code and provisions addressing the situation wherein despite the directions the concerned party does not supply the details and information, are also provided under the provisions of the Act.
Under Section 20 of the Act, remedy in case of default or even delay by the concerned party, in providing information and/or comply directions is provided.
The provision under the Act authorizes the respondent no.3 to take appropriate action in case of delay and default by the concerned party in supplying the information as directed and also to impose fine on the defaulting party.
5. Thus, when there is adequate and efficacious remedy provided under the Code of the Act itself, more particularly in view of the fact that the petitioner has already approached the respondent no.3, present petition does not deserve to be entertained and the relief, as prayed for by the petitioner, viz. direction to respondent no.1 to supply the details asked for by the petitioner, cannot be granted.
It would be open to the petitioner to prosecute application under the Act, i.e. before the respondent no.3 and dismissal of present petition will not stand in way of or against the petitioner in prosecuting the said proceedings.
With the aforesaid observations and clarifications, present petition stands disposed of.
(K.M.Thaker, J.) kdc