High Court · 2025

Petition u nde' section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circunrstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court mav be pleased to directtheRespondentNo.,ltoswiftlyactUpontheAppealdated2Q.ll.2024,filed by the Petitioner and furnish the r:equisite- information sought bv the Pqtitioner pending disposal of main Writ Petition, counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S.LAKSHtUI KANTH a;;;;;i ror the Re6po44enGi ce ng-R INEoRMATIoN rEcHNoLoqY The Court mqde the follgvvingr ORQER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR Writ P ion No. 4872 ot 2025 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Information and Technology appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and perused the record.

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, ls that though he has flled an appeal under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, 'the Act'), on 20.11.2024, to provide requisite information, the said information has not been furnished; and that he has received a notice dt.30.lL.2024, wherein it is stated that the appeal had been filed beyond the statutory limitation period of 90 days and that no application for condonation of delay had been submitted.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that pursuant to the notice dt.30.17.2024, despite the petitioner filing petition for condonation of delay, on 13.12.2024, even though more than two and half months have passed by, no information or communication has been received from the authorities till date.

4. It is also the contention of the petitioner that in terms of Section 19(6) of the Act, the authorities are required to dispose of the second appeal preferred under Section 19(3) of the Act within 30 days, but the 2 same is not dis;posed of till date. Hence, the present Writ Pr,:tition is filed to direct the .l"d respondent herein to dispose of the afores;rid appeal as well as the de ay petition, expeditiously.

5. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Information and Technology appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 sub,mits that the provisions of Section 19(6) of the Act would not be applicable in relation to appeal filed under Section 19(3) of the Act and therefore, the claim of the petitioner that the appeal is required to dispose of within 30 days is factually not ccrrect.

6. Learned Government Pleader would further submit thal. the office of the State Chief Information Commissioner is presently vacanl. and already a notification has been issued for filling up the aforesaid vacancy; and that once the office of the State Chief Information Commissione- is filled up, the authority lvould dispose of the appeals filed before it underr the Act.

7. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged. B. At the outset, it is to bE noted that the appeal filed by the petitioner before the 1't r,:spondent under Sectlon 19(3) of the Act is second appeal. Section 19(6) of the Act, on which reliance is placed by the petitioner to contend that the said appeal is required to be disposed of wi:hin a period of 30 days, it i:; to be noted that Section 19(6) of the Act is applicable in relation to appeals filed under Sections 19(1) and 19(2) of the Act and \ z'4 l t. i I I 3 does not deal with the second appeal filed under Section 19(3) of the Act. Thus, the claim of the petitioner that the appeal preferred under section 19(3) of the Act is to be disposed of within 30 days along with delay condonation application is without merit and accordingly rejected. I t

9. Insofar as the disposal of the appeals filed with the 2nd respondent under Section 19(3) of the Act are concerned, admittedly the office of the lst respondent is lying vacant for long time and is the subject matter of a Writ Petition before a Division Bench of this Court, wherein it has been stated on behalf of the respondents of the Government having issued a notification inviting appllcation for filling up the vacancy in the office of the State Chief Information Commissioner and the matter is under active consideration. Since, steps have already been initiated for filling up the vacancy in the office of the State Chief Information Commissioner by issuing a notification, this Court cannot prescribe any time limit for the authorities to complete the aforesaid exercise or direct the appeal filed by the petitioner to be disposed of by indicating time frame.

10. As noted above, since, action to fill up the vacancy in the office of the 1't respondent had already been initiated, this Court is of the view that on the aforesaid vacancy viz., the office of State Chief Information Commissioner, is filled up, the respondents-authorities shall dispose of the pending appeals which are filed before the said authority and are kept pending all through this period, as expeditiously as possible. I i i I i 4

11. Subject to above observation, the Writ Petition is disf,osed of. No order as to costs.

12. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. ,/TRUE COPY/' I To 1 ? J 4 5 iffi J?';,,jiln*?;,rnt,r*iriffitrl:ru*5]riat.irJi-i}.."' +ll*:$ "trlex.*tn ffi +hq':rro.g*ffisiff+i'ft%t3#':r off icer' off ice of Joint s ub-Res istra r- I Ad irabad' H g h oou r'i ro r'ihe

6. Two CD CoPtes PSK. BS Y HIGH COURT DATED:2710312025 ORDER WP.No.4872 of 2025 i, ( I ,,, 1HE STA] 6, 0I [Pn 202i DE.q rr.Tc,'l ( v o .! t DISPOS]NG OF THE WRIT PETITION WTTHOUT COSTS c ,ril$ I$