Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party no. 1 to decide the petitioner's application/appeal dated 24.10.2009, moved by the petitioner under Right to Information Act, 2005 as expeditiously as possible or within the period stipulated by this Court.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner sent an application on 31.1.2009 to the opposite party no. 2 through registered post under Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking certain informations regarding order dated 11.8.2003, passed in suit no. 282 under section 9-Ka(2) in respect of Akar Patra 23, Chak No. 316 in Gata No. 713-724B-724A. Petitioner also sought information regarding compliance of amended order dated 14.6.2003 in respect of Akar Patra 23 and why the order dated 28.11.2006, passed in suit no. 72 under section 12 has not been complied with. When petitioner did not get any information sought by him, he sent another application on 24.10.2009 seeking the aforesaid informations but nothing has been done so far.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the interest of justice a direction be issued to the opposite party no. 1 to decide the petitioner's application dated 24.10.2009 moved under Right to Information Act as expeditiously as possible or within the period stipulated by this Court.
A perusal of writ petition reveals that the petitioner has sent an application through post on 31.1.2009 to the Public Information Officer/ Settlement Officer, Bahraich/Shravasti and second application was sent to the Public Information Officer/District Magistrate, Shravasti and he has sought information regarding the proceedings passed in suit no. 282 under section 9- K(2) in respect of Aakar Patra 23, chuk no. 316 in Gata No. 713-724B-724A and also an information regarding compliance of the order dated 28.11.2006 passed in suit no. 72 under section 12 in making final record of Aakar Patra 41 and 45. The record shows that the petitioner himself is not confirmed as to from whom he wants to seek information and secondly, the information sought is related to the judicial proceedings for which he can apply for a certified copy.
Apart from the above, Section 19 (1) of Right to Information Act provides remedy of appeal and thereafter second appeal under section 19 (3) before the State Information Commission.
In the present case, after sending two vague applications the petitioner has approached this Court for seeking a writ of mandamus directing the opposite party no. 1 to decide the petitioner's appeal dated 24.10.2009 whereas section 19(3) of the Act provides second appeal before the State Information Commission within 90 days from the date on which decision should have been made or was actually received.
In view of the above, it is evident that the petitioner has been ill-advised to approach this Court for seeking mandamus to direct the opposite party no. 1 to decide appeal of the petitioner dated 24.10.2009 whereas under section 19 (3) of Right to Information Act he has remedy of filing second appeal before the State Information Commission.
This writ petition is, therefore, misconceived and devoid of merit and is not maintainable in the eyes of law.
Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed.
Order Date :- 7.1.2010 ashok