LAND &BUILDING DEPARTMENT Vs. PREM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the orders dated 28. 05. 2015, 16. 03. 2016, 22. 04. 2016 and 06. 07. 2016 passed by the Central Information Commission (hereafter "the CIC") in Second Appeal No. CIC/SA/A/2015/000037 preferred by the respondent under Section 19 (3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereafter "the RTI Act"). By the order dated 28. 05. 2015, the CIC had called upon the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the petitioner to show cause why the maximum penalty under the RTI Act should not be imposed. The PIO was further called upon to also show cause why suitable compensation should not be provided to the respondent.

(2.) Although, certain observations have been made in the order dated 16. 03. 2016; however, the operative part of the said order is in the nature of a notice to show cause why the action proposed by the CIC not be taken. By the order dated 2 04. 2016, the CIC granted time to the Ministry of Home Affairs "to have a comprehensive consideration of the serious problem of keeping up the promise/condition of the agreement that the State would pay compensation and provide alternative plot at a rate to those whose land were acquired". This order also cannot be construed as determinative of the controversy involved. In view of the above, it is not necessary to consider the petitioner's challenge to the aforesaid orders considering that the petitioner's appeal was finally disposed of by the order dated 06. 07. 2016 (hereafter referred to as "the impugned order").

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also advanced contentions focused on the directions issued in the impugned order.