M/s Tusin Rodong Enterprises v. The Arunachal Pradesh State Information Commission and 4 Ors

3: M/s Tusin Rodong Enterprises Represented by its Proprietor Shri Narmi Katon Darang R/o Mirbuk Village PO/PS Pasighat East Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 4: M/s Kine Nane Enterprises Represented by its Proprietor Ms. Mumdi Pertin R/o Napit Village. PO/PS Pasighat East Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 5: Agam Enterprises Represented by its Proprietor Shri Tarem Darang S/o Lt. Takit Darang R/o Mirbuk Village PO/PS Pasighat East Siang District Arunachal Pradesh Page No.# 2/5 6: Purvanchal Enterprises Represented by its Proprietor Smtii Oyar Darang W/o Lt.. Takit Darang R/o Mirbuk Village PO/PS Pasighat East Siang District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS 1:The Arunachal Pradesh State Information Commission and 4 Ors. Represented by its Registrar. ESS Sector, Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh PIN 791111 2:The Commissioner Public Works Department Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar Arunachal Pradesh 3:The Chief Engineer Public Works Department (CSQ) Nirman Bhawan 0 Point Tinali Itanagar Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar Arunachal Pradesh. 4:The Superintending Engineer cum PIO (CSQ) Public Works Department Nirman Bhawan 0 Point Tinali Itanagar Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar Arunachal Pradesh. 5:Takar Goi R/o Yagrung Village PO/PS Pasighat East Siang District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Parswajyoti Das Nair Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP) BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE NANI TAGIA HONBLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 29.09.2022 (N. Tagia, J) Page No.# 3/5 Heard Mr. Parswajyoti Das Nair, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. Also heard Mr. Rintu Saikia, learned standing counsel, Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission(APIC); and Mr. Subu Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate; appearing on behalf of their respective respondents.

The appellants have filed this appeal, assailing the impugned order, dated

09.09.2022, passed by the learned single Judge in IA(c)127(AP)2022 in WP(c)149(AP)2022, whereby the interim order, dated 08.04.2022, passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, staying the operation of the order, dated

08.03.2022, passed by the Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission(APIC), directing the Public Information Officer(PIO) of the Department concerned to furnish certain information of the appellants sought for by the applicants, has been vacated.

The impugned order, dated 09.09.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge in IA(c)127(AP)2022 in WP(c)149(AP)2022, is a common order passed in the respective interlocutory applications filed by the writ petitioners in WP(c)144(AP)2022, WP(c)145(AP)2022, WP(c)146(AP)2022, and WP(c)149(AP)2022, respectively.

The writ petitioners in WP(c)144(AP)2022, had preferred an appeal being WA 28(AP)2022, assailing the same order passed by the learned Single Judge which has been assailed by the appellants, herein.

The aforesaid WA 28(AP)2022, was disposed of by this Court on 19.09.2022, whereby the appeal filed by the appellants, therein, seeking setting aside of the impugned order, dated 09.09.2022 passed by the learned single Judge in the interlocutory applications filed, was dismissed. Page No.# 4/5

The present appeal having been filed by the appellants who are the writ petitioners in WP(c)149(AP)2022, and the issue raised for determination being identical with the issue raised in WA 28(AP)20222; the decision rendered by this Court in WA 28(AP)2022, will also cover this appeal except to the extent of the contentions made that the appellants, herein, who are the writ petitioners in WP(c)149(AP)2022, were not heard when the impugned order, dated 09.09.2022, was passed by the learned single Judge, in the interlocutory applications filed.

Though on the contentions raised by the appellants that they were not heard when the impugned order, dated 09.09.2022, was passed by the learned single Judge in the interlocutory applications filed; could have been a good ground for setting aside of the impugned order, dated 09.09.2022, and remanding the matter back to the learned Single Judge for a fresh decision but having regard to the fact that the information sought for by the applicant in respect of the present appellants as well as the other appellants/writ petitioners who had preferred the WA 28(AP)2022, being identical in nature, to which, we have already rendered our opinion holding that the information directed to be furnished, are not exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1) (d), (e) and (j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, in WA 28(AP)2022; any contrary decision rendered herein, even the decision in the nature of remanding back the matter to the learned Single Judge for a fresh decision, is likely to affect in furnishing the information sought for by the applicant under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which, we had already hold that the same are not exempted from disclosure under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

In view of the decision rendered in WA 28(AP)2022, we are of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served in remanding back the matter to the learned Single Judge for a fresh decision. Page No.# 5/5

In that view of the matter, we also take the same view as had been taken by this Court in WA 28(AP)2022, vide order, dated 19.09.2022, by holding that no interference by this Court is called for to the impugned order, dated 09.09.2022, passed by the learned single Judge in IA(c)127(AP)2022 in WP(c)149(AP)2022.

Notwithstanding the above; we reiterate the order passed by this Court in WA 28(AP)2022, referred to above, in the instant appeal also, that the writ petition filed by the appellants/writ petitioners shall now be disposed of by the learned Single Judge as expeditiously as possible, without being influenced by any findings recorded herein.

The writ appeal accordingly stands disposed of, in terms above. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant