STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION; JOINT SECRETARY CUM ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR Vs. CENTRAL SELECTION BOARD OF CONSTABLES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Interlocutory Application No.9182 of 2013 This application is filed with a prayer to condone the delay of 3 months and 25 days in filing the review application. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents and we are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the application. The delay is condoned. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of.

(2.) This application is filed with a prayer to review the order dated 09.07.2013 passed in LPA No.355 of 2013. The facts, in brief, are as under.

(3.) The 2nd respondent herein submitted an application before the P.I.O. of the concerned department under the Right to Information Act (for short, "the Act?), with a prayer to furnish some information relating to selection of constables. Complaining that the information was not furnished, he filed an appeal and thereafter 2nd appeal before the State Information Commission- 1st petitioner herein. The 2nd Appeal being Case No.42430 of 2010-11 was taken up for hearing on 13.12.2011 but there was no representation on behalf of the 2nd respondent. However, the 1st petitioner passed a reasoned order and closed the appeal. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent filed an application before the 1st petitioner complaining that the required information was not furnished. Acting on that, the 1st petitioner passed an order on 08.08.2012 directing the 1st respondent to furnish some more information. Challenging the order dated 08.08.2012, the 1st respondent filed CWJC No.17311 of 2012. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition through order dated 18.09.2012. Aggrieved by that, the 1st respondent filed LPA No.355 of 2013. One of the grounds urged by the 1st respondent was that the 1st petitioner does not have the power to review its own order and accordingly, the order dated 08.08.2012 is without jurisdiction. That ground weighed with the Division Bench, of which one of us (Hon?ble Mr. Justice Vikash Jain), is a member; and the LPA was allowed. An observation was made to the effect that the 2nd respondent can avail the remedy of an appeal under Section 19 of the Act.