Writ Petition No. 1986 of 2008 · Uttarakhand High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- SUDHANSHU DHULIA
Outcome
Dismissed
Therefore, writ petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
Judgment
Operative part
Mr. R.C. Tamta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Vipual Sharma, learned counsel for respondent no.1. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, learned Additional CSC for State. Mr. Vinond Nautiyal, learned counsel for the respondent no.3. Mr. Ravi Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent no.4. 12th February, 2009 Hon(cid:146)ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Heard Mr. R.C. Tamta, learned counsel for the petitioner, the Mr. Vipul Sharma, learned counsel for respondent no.1, Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, learned Additional CSC for State and Mr. Vinod Nautiyal, learned counsel for the respondent no.3. and Mr. Ravi Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent no.4. Petitioner has alternative remedy to approach the Central information Commission or State Information Commission as the case may be, under Section 18 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, Writ petition is both premature and not maintainable at this stage, in view of the alternative remedy. Therefore, writ petition is dismissed. Petitioner may move application under Section 18 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 for redressal of his grievance.
12.02.2009 SKS (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Therefore, writ petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Right to Information Act, 2005 — s. 18.
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.