SAIYED HUSSAIN ABBAS RIZWI Vs. STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 14486 of 2009 has preferred this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, and is aggrieved by the order dated 27.11.2009, whereby his writ petition has been dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, wherein it has been held that the informations sought for by him and required to be given have been supplied by Respondent No. 2 herein, and the remaining informations sought for have rightly been denied in view of the bar engrafted in Section 8 (1) (j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (Act, 22 of 2005) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') . The learned Single Judge has also dealt with the question relating to formation/constitution of Benches of the Tribunal.

(2.) A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this appeal may be indicated. Respondent No. 2 had published advertisement No. 6/2000, inviting applications for appointment to the posts of "State Examiner of Questioned Documents", in Police Laboratory in C.I.D., Government of Bihar, Patna. The advertisement, inter alia, stated that written examination will be held if adequate number of applications are received. In view of the position that few applications were received, the Commission exercised the option as per the advertisement, and decided to select the candidates for appointment on the basis of viva voce test. Respondent No. 2 concluded the selection process and made the recommendation (s) to the State of Bihar.

(3.) While assailing the validity of the impugned action, learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the traditional concept of Locus standi has been completely abandoned under the provisions of the Act. He next submits that the information sought for by paragraph 4 of his communication dated 16.12.2008, is not hit by the bar engrafted in Section 8 (1) (j) of the Act. He lastly submits that the Commission comprises of all its members and, therefore, the order passed by the Commission by one learned Member is inappropriate and bad in law.