IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT

th

ON THE 24 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 14794 of 2013 SMT. SUDHA VIJAY SINGH BHADORIYA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri M.K.Mishra, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sourabh Soni, P.L. for respondent/State.

ORDER Present petition is filed seeking following reliefs :-

"(i) To call for the records pursuant to the instant subject matter for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.2.

(ii) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus for setting aside the impugned order dated 17.7.2013.

(iii) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to take appropriate action against the respondent No.5 for violation of the provisions of the Right to information Act, 2005.

(iv) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner along with cost of the petition." 2. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in view of subsequent development which is mentioned in the return, the cause of the present petition will not survive. He has drawn attention of the court towards para-1 and 2 of the return, which reads as under:-

"1. That, the petitioner has filed the instant petition challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 17.07.2013 (Annexure P/6). It is respectfully submitted that by order dated 17.07.2013, the appeal preferred by the private respondent No.5 Under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act 2005 has been allowed. The Appellate Authority has directed to provide information to the appellant (respondent No.5). The respondent No.5 has submitted an application U/s 6(1) of the Right to Information Act before the Public Information Officer, Sagar i.e. District Prosecution Officer, Sagar demanding the documents relating to caste, domicile certificate, educational qualification etc of the petitioner and one another namely Satish Sharm. The petitioner and one another namely Satish Sharma have raised their objection stating therein that the information could not be given as the same or related with them personally. On considering the objection, the application of the respondent No.5 has been rejected by the Public Information Officer, Sagar (District Prosecution Officer, Sagar) by order dated 19.06.2013. The respondent No.5 has filed his appeal before the Appellate Authority and the same has been allowed by the Deptity Director Sagar by the order impugned dated 17.07.2013 (Annexure P/6). In compliance of the order dated 17.07.2013 passed by the Appellate Authority, the relevant information has been given to the respondent No.5 thorough speed post along with the covering letter dated vg ay 26.08.2013. The information has also been received by the respondent No.5 on 28.08.2013. It is therefore, respectfully submitted that impugned order dated 17.07.2013 has already been executed on

26.08.2013. It is therefore, respectfully submitted that instant petition as filed by the petitioner has been rendered infructuous as nothing survive for adjudication. Copies of the covering letter dated 26.08.2013 along with the postal receipt and acknowledgement given by the postmaster are been filed herewith as Annexure R/1 collectively. 2. That, in view of submissions made hereinabove it is evident that the impugned order has already been executed. Hence the petition filed by the petitioner is now rendered infructuous. Presently answering respondents not filing parawise reply they crave leave of this Hon’ble Court to file the same as and when required in the instant matter."

3. Considering the aforesaid reply, it transpires that the prayer made in the petition is satisfied and no further cause will survive, therefore, petition is disposed off accordingly.

(SANDEEP N. BHATT)

JUDGE MKL