ASHOK KUMAR Vs. PUNJAB STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present order would dispose of three writ petitions i.e., CWP- 20000-2023 titled as 'Ashok Kumar Vs. Punjab State Information Commission and others'; CWP-20025-2023 titled as 'Ashok Kumar Vs. Punjab State Information Commission and others'; and CWP-20043-2023 titled as 'Ashok Kumar Vs. Punjab State Information Commission and others'. Challenge in all the writ petitions is to the orders (Annexure P-6) passed in the three appeals filed by the petitioner before the State Information Commission, Punjab in the proceedings under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'RTI Act')

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had filed three applications under the RTI Act and the said applications are annexed as Annexure P-1 with each of the three writ petitions. When the information sought was not supplied by the Public Information Officer, then, three separate appeals were filed by the petitioner before the first appellate authority. When the information was still not provided, three separate appeals i.e., Appeal No.4716-2022 (subject matter of CWP-20000-2023); Appeal No.4714-2022 (subject matter of CWP-20025-2023) and Appeal No.4715-2022 (subject matter of CWP-20043-2023) were filed by the petitioner. Two separate orders dtd. 6/3/2023 were passed by the State Information Commission in the Appeal No.4716-2022 and Appeal No.4715-2022 and the reading of the said orders would show that they are almost identical. The relevant portion of the order dtd. 6/3/2023 (Annexure P-4) passed in Appeal No.4716-2022 is reproduced herein below: -

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the State Information Commission, Punjab while disposing of the second statutory appeals had granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the Commission within a specified period with respect to making any submissions regarding the information sought and the petitioner had approached the State Information Commission within the said period, thus, it was incumbent upon the authorities to have heard the petitioner and after considering the submissions made by the petitioner, to decide the applications in accordance with law after passing a speaking order. It is further submitted that in Appeal No.4716 of 2022 as well as Appeal No.4715 of 2022, the stand of the authorities was that the information would be supplied, but the same has not been supplied from the date of passing of order dtd. 6/3/2023, thus, it was also incumbent on the State Information Commissioner to have considered the appeals of the petitioner and to proceed under Sec. 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 for noncompliance of the said order. It is stated that even with respect to Appeal No.4714 of 2022, although in the absence of the petitioner, it was stated by the respondent authorities that the information had been provided, but in pursuance of the liberty granted to the petitioner, the petitioner had approached the Commission, by moving an application dtd. 13/3/2023 (Annexure P-5), attached with CWP-20025-2023, to highlight the fact that incomplete information had been given and even with respect to the same, there was no adjudication as the said application was also disposed of with a similar endorsement as was done in the other two cases. It is argued that the impugned orders, in all the three writ petitions, are in violation of the law laid down by this Court in "Gagnish Singh Khurana VS. State of Punjab and others, reported as 2023 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 847 as well as in CWP-17672-2023 titled as "Rajwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others", decided on 16/8/2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that thus the impugned orders deserve to be set aside and has prayed that the State Information Commission be directed to consider the said applications/appeals filed by the petitioner in pursuance of the orders passed by the State Information Commission in accordance with law and after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and by passing a speaking order.