KHUMBONGMAYUM LUPENJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR
HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
Khumbongmayum Lupenjit Singh
STATE OF MANIPUR
Click here to view full judgement.
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
(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.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.