1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 5679 of 2026 Decided on: 03.06.2026 Baldev Das …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P and others ..Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Tanishq Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N.Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Rajat Choudhry, Assistant Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner’s case is that he filed an application on 26.08.2025 under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short, the Act) before the Public Information Officer, Executive Engineer, Jal Shakti Vibhag, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. seeking certain information; Information/reply was not furnished by the Public Information Officer within the statutory period. Petitioner preferred first appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act before the Superintending Engineer, Jal Shakti Vibhag, Bilaspur on 26.09.2025 alleging that neither 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 information was received by the petitioner nor his appeal was decided; On 21.01.2026, petitioner filed second appeal under Section 19(3) of the Act before the State Information Commissioner. In this background, petitioner filed instant writ petition seeking following substantive direction:- “(i). Issue a writ of mandamus or may other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent No.4 the Public Information Officer, Executive Engineer, Jal Shakti Vibhag, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. to forthwith furnish complete and legible copies of the documents and information sought by the petitioner in his RTI application dated 26.08.2025, pertaining to the educational qualifications, eligibility certificates, and other documents submitted by the appointees to the posts of Multi Task Worker, Para Pump Operator, and Para Fitter, appointed on 11.04.2025 in the Jal Shakti Vibhag in a time bound manner.” 2. Petitioner’s grievance was noticed in the order dated 21.04.2026 passed in this writ petitioner as under:- “Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondents. Learned Additional Advocate General to have instructions as to why the Public Information Officer i.e. respondent No.4 has not responded to request of the petitioner made under Right to Information Act and also as to why respondent No.3 has not decided the first appeal preferred by the petitioner and outcome of petitioner’s second appeal be also apprised on next date of hearing. List on 29.05.2026.” 3 3. Pursuant to above, learned Deputy Advocate General placed on record office instructions dated 19.05.2026 conveying that PIO-cum-Executive Engineer, Jal Shakti Division, Ghumarwin vide his letter dated 23.09.2025 had informed the petitioner that requisite information was ready. Since no response was received from the petitioner, information was sent to the petitioner through registered post (5 No. packets dated 10.10.2025) free of cost as petitioner belonged to Below Poverty Line category. The registered post was received by the petitioner on 11.10.2025. Petitioner did not raise any further objection. Petitioner was also suggested if he wants any additional information, he may submit fresh application. In view of above, petitioner’s appeal was disposed of in his presence on 21.11.2025. Petitioner was directed therein that he may submit fresh application in case he needs additional information. Petitioner agreed to the suggestion made to him and expressed his satisfaction. In view of instructions placed on record by the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though petitioner’s grievance raised in this writ 4 petition has been redressed, however, the information supplied to the petitioner is not in terms with information sought for in the application. Therefore, petitioner be reserved liberty to seek appropriate remedy for the redressal of his surviving grievance. 4. In view of above, granting liberty as prayed for, petition to stand disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, to also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua June 03, 2026 Judge yogesh