RAMESH KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the present petition is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside impugned order dated 16.3.2016 (Annexure P-9) passed by respondent No.1,whereby, the petitioner was asked either to attend hearing of the case or in case, he did not wish to attend the hearing, he could send his submissions to the Commission at least two days in advance. A further prayer has also been made for issuing directions to respondent No.3 to decide the application filed by the complainant under Section 6 (1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2005') and to punish said CPIO/delinquent official (s) by imposing exemplary penalty for causing delay of about two years and nine months in supplying the information to the petitioner.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Central Information Commission had sent a notice dated 25.2.2016 under Section 18 of the Act, 2005 to the petitioner to appear before the Commission with all relevant papers/documents to be relied on during the hearing and in case he did not wish to attend the hearing, he was asked to send his submissions to the Commission at least two days in advance. He was also advised to send copy of his complaint filed before the Commission to the Public Authority. In response to that notice, the petitioner sent his written submissions to the Commission well in advance i.e. two days prior to the date fixed but still his complaint has been dismissed mainly on the ground that he did not appear before the appellate authority.

(3.) Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the petitioner did not appear before the Commission but sent written submissions before the Commission on the date fixed but his complaint was dismissed. Learned counsel further contends that case of the petitioner was dismissed for want of his presence.