R. V. Raveendran, J. - (1.) Delay condoned. Issue notice. Petitioner to file copies of correspondence with State Information Commissioner as also its title deeds to the disputed property. As this case is a typical example of an irregular process spreading across the country, we propose to refer to some aspects of the case at this preliminary stage itself.
(2.) The petitioner, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, claims that one Ramnath and his family members sold two and half acres of land in Wazirabad village, Gurgoan to them by means of an agreement of sale, General Power of Attorney (for short 'GPA') and a will in the year 1991 for a consideration of Rs. 7,16,695/-. It is further alleged that the petitioner verbally agreed to sell a part of the said property measuring one acre to one Dharamvir Yadav for Rs. 60 lakhs in December 1996. It is stated that the said Dharamvir Yadav, and his son Mohit Yadav (an ex MLA and Minister), instead of proceeding with the transaction with the petitioner, directly got in touch with Ramanath and his family members and in 1997 got a GPA in favour of Dharamvir Yadav in regard to the entire two and half acres executed and registered and illegally cancelled the earlier GPA in favour of petitioner. The petitioner claims that when its Director, S. K. Chandak, confronted Dharamvir Yadav in the year 1999 in this behalf, the said Yadav apologized and issued a cheque for Rs. 10 lakhs towards part payment and agreed to pay the balance of Rs. 50/- lakhs shortly but that the said cheque was dishonoured necessitating a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, being filed against Dharamvir Yadav which is pending in a criminal Court at Patiala House, New Delhi. It is further alleged that in the year 2001, petitioner lodged a criminal complaint against Ramanath and members of his family who executed the sale agreement/GPA/will in favour of the petitioner and another complaint against Dharambir Yadav and his son in the District Court, Gurgoan, for offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC. The petitioner claims that in December 2005 it lodged an FIR in respect of offence under Sections 406, 467, 468 and 471 and 120B of IPC against all of them.
(3.) The petitioner claims that as no action was taken on its FIR by the Station House Officer/Investigation Officer ('SHO/IO' for short), petitioner filed an application under Right to Information Act, 2004 ('RTI Act' for short) seeking the status, in response to which the SHO/IO gave contradictory and misleading versions about the status of the investigation and about the seizure and custody of the agreement and power of attorney from the accused. An appeal filed by the petitioner was disposed of by the Chief Information Commissioner, Haryana. by an order dated 27-12-2007 merely directing that Police should re-investigate the FIR as per the order of the Court and the Department should give a specific proper reply about the status of the documents, to the appellant by 25-1-2008. According to the petitioner, the Commissioner ought to have initiated action against the police for giving false and misleading information under Section 20 of the RTI Act. Petitioner therefore filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Chief Information Commissioner and seeking initiation of proceedings under Section 20 of the RTI Act and imposition of penalty. The said writ petition was disposed of by the High Court by the impugned order holding that Section 20 was directory and not mandatory. This SLP seeks leave to file an appeal against the said order.;