COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR v. Information Officer, Civil Court Jaijaipur, District
Case at a glance
Outcome
Withdrawn
is dismissed as withdrawn with tfae
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
- Infonnation Act, 2005
Judgment
Operative part
•^Ramesh Kumar Nayak S/o Late Shri Brindavan Nayak, ^ ^y^c..'r T"1""."'"'"'.'"". ra"1"^'^ ^.'"^""tC'^.&^-25''^ Tahsil-Jaijaipur, District-Janjgir Champa (C.G.) Aged about-33 years, R/o Village-Thuthi, Post-Thathari, fj^ w^ ^** t©^®^ MobileNo.-07828815538 Versus RESPONDENTS: - 1) <^ Shri Prabhakar Gwal, Civil Judge Class-1, District Court Bilaspur, the then Public Information Officer, Civil Court Jaijaipur, District- 2) <^ Janjgir Champa, (C.G.) Shri Roop Narayan Pathare, Public Information Officer, 3) 4) Civil Court Jaijaipur, District-Janj'gir Champa (C.G.) Public Information Officer, Civil Court Sakti, District-Janjgir Champa (C.G.) First Appellate Authority (Public lnformation)/Additional District Judge Civil Court Sakti, District-Janjgir Champa (C.G.) 5)...- State Information Commissioner, Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Nirmal Chhaya, Meera Datar Road, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT / WRITS DIRECTION/DIRECTIONS. ORDER/ORDERS ETC. "> ; S?J k78 3^q' ^ll^lrt^, OTfl <-]']<», idrtl'yy ^' \0 I't!-' .l^..^J........2"D6.?.Ll: ^r ail^iil ?i1'feR? 'aqr sn^ gi'qN; '^Rnw^ikii an^t ^TffeTqt^ IWRfi'? f3I?t ^R?R '^•aifenan^l S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice N.3K. 31.01.2013 Shri Ramesh Kumar Nayapc, petitioner-m-perso Shri Nayak, petitioner-i| argued before the Information in terms of Section 20 of the PJ same has not beea considered b^j ^i-person submits that althougli he (fommission for awarding him penalty jght to Infonnation Act, 2005, but the the Commission, and therefore, seeks permission of tais court to review petition before the Prayer is allowed. Comnlission. wiftjdraw this petition vvith libert^' to file Accordingly, the petition] above stated liberty, No order a^ is dismissed as withdrawn with tfae to costs. If any review petition ij Commission, the same shall N i^ filed by the petitioser before the ?4 disposed of by the Commission ia accordance with law expeditio] within a period of three monti petition. as eaiiy as possible preferably montlks from the date of filing of review Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge ^
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: is dismissed as withdrawn with tfae
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227; Infonnation Act, 2005.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.