IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1038/2019 Decided on: 23.06.2026 Hira Nand …..Petitioner Versus State Information Commission & Ors. .....Respondents ………………………………………………………………………………… Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents: None for respondent No.1. Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.2 to 4. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief: - “ That the Annexure P-3 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondents may kindly be directed to supply the requisite information to the petitioner and the respondent officials may kindly be penalized for not supplying the information within time and action may kindly be taken against the erring respondents.” 2. Petitioner had prayed for supply of following information on 17.05.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (the Act in short):- 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 “1. Action taken on the recommendations made in the Enquiry Report in Comp. No. 04/2015 alongwith copies of the office noting/zemini orders in this behalf right from the date of receipt of the Enquiry Report in Comp. No. 04/2015 in the Office of Settlement Officer, Shimla. 2. The present status of the departmental proceedings against Shri Raghu Raj, Patwari as well as reviewing of Mutation No. 238 dated 07.06.2013.” 3. Information with regard to Point No. 1 was admittedly supplied to the petitioner. He was satisfied with the information received on Point No. 1 from the Public Information Officer. Aggrieved by the non-supply of information relating to Point No. 2, the petitioner instituted an appeal under Section 19 of the Act before the First Appellate Authority-cum-Settlement Officer, Shimla. The said appeal was decided on 11.09.2017 with direction to the Public Information Officer-cum- Assistant Settlement Officer, Arki, to supply the information sought by the petitioner on Point No. 2. As the petitioner still did not receive the information relating to Point No. 2, he instituted second appeal on 30.11.2017. 4. Respondent No. 1-the State Information Commission took note of the stand of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Arki, the then Assistant Settlement Officer (ASO), that the Settlement Officer, Shimla, vide report dated 28.07.2016, had proposed review of 3 Mutation No. 238 of Mohal Paroi, Tehsil Arki, under Section 16 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act. The Settlement Officer, Shimla, Division vide order dated 19.09.2016, transferred the file to the ASO, Arki, with direction to dispose of the matter in the presence of the applicant (present petitioner) and other stakeholders. The Halqua Patwari had inadvertently omitted the names of the co-owners of the property and that the concerned Revenue Officer had taken recourse to Section 16 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act for reviewing the mutation to correct bonafide mistake. Respondent No.1 held since attestation of mutation is undertaken by Revenue Officers in discharge of their judicial functions, remedy under the revenue law is available to the aggrieved persons. Mere recommendation by the SV&ACB to charge-sheet a Patwari on the ground of omission of the names of the daughters of the deceased in the mutation need not necessarily be acted upon, particularly when the Settlement Officer, vide order dated 19.09.2016, had allowed the proposal of the Tehsildar, Settlement, to review Mutation No. 238 in question. In view of the above, the findings recorded in the order passed by respondent No. 1 clearly indicate that no departmental proceedings had been initiated against the concerned officer. The status of the review of Mutation No. 238 dated 07.06.2013 was also disclosed in the order. It was for the petitioner, who was required to 4 associate himself with the proceedings for review of Mutation No. 238, to join the proceedings and obtain the order passed therein. Accordingly, no case for interference is made out in the order dated 30.01.2019 passed by the State Chief Information Commissioner, H.P., hence, the instant petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 23rd June, 2026 (rohit)