COMMUNIDADE OF PILERNE Vs. FRANCIS D MELLO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule, made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the respondent no.1 waives service. Heard finally by consent of parties.

(2.) The respondent no.1 had filed an application seeking certain information with the PIO, which application was not decided. Hence, the respondent no.1 approached the First Appellate Authority, which by an order dated 11/03/2016, directed the petitioner Comunidade to provide the information through the Administrator. The petitioner sought to challenge the said order in Second Appeal. Second Appellate Authority, by an order dated 21/03/2017, has declined to entertain the appeal on the ground that it is not maintainable. Hence, this petition.

(3.) The petitioner, by way of amendment, has challenged the order of the First Appellate Authority, on the ground that it is unreasoned. The petitioner is restricting its challenge in terms of prayer clause (i)(a).