Decided on May 29,2019

Khumbongmayum Lupenjit Singh Appellant


MV MURALIDARAN,J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the order dated 27.4.2016 passed by the second respondent and to direct the respondents 3, 4 and 5 to furnish the information sought in the application dated 29.11.2013 submitted by the petitioner.
(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he had submitted an application dated 29.11.2013 to the State Public Information Officer/The Additional Director of Education (S), Valley Government of Manipur under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 for furnishing certain information in respect of one Smt. Ningombam Bimola Devi, a retired Headmistress of Kha Imphal Primary School. Based on the application, the Additional Director of Education (S/V) sent a letter dated 04.12.2013 to the fifth respondent requesting to furnish the required information to the petitioner, however, the fifth respondent failed to furnish the information. Thereafter, the petitioner filed first appeal under Section 19 of the said Act on 04.01.2014 before the First Appellate Authority/3rd respondent. On 18.01.2014, the fourth respondent sent a letter to the fifth respondent directing to furnish the information within five days of the receipt of the letter. The petitioner waited for information more than 60 days and as such having no other alternative, approached this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(C) No.352 of 2014. Pending writ petition, the fourth respondent sent a letter dated 24.6.2014 to the petitioner enclosing three pages of Attendance Register of Kha Imphal Primary School thereby stating that the required information sought by the petitioner has been provided by the fifth respondent.
(3.) According to the petitioner, the letter of the fourth respondent would reveal that the required information was not furnished within the stipulated time of 30 days as provided under Section 6(1) of the said Act. By an order dated 1.6.2015, W.P.(C) No.352 of 2014 came to be disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to approach respondent No.2 and as such, the petitioner filed a complaint being Complaint Case No.10 of 2016 before the second respondent and the said complaint was disposed of by the second respondent directing the State Public Information Officer (SPIO) to furnish a reply on the RTI application to the complainant indicating availability or otherwise of the information and details of efforts made by the Public Authority for providing the required information.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.