IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Delay Condonation Application No. 8330 of 2009 IN Special Appeal No. 184 of 2009 Under Secretary/Public Information Officer & another … Appellants Vs The Uttarakhand Information Commission & others … Respondents Sri P.C. Bisht, learned counsel for the appellants Sri Vipul Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, ACJ Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. Heard Sri P.C. Bisht, learned counsel for the appellants on the delay condonation application and perused the affidavit filed in support thereto. 2. We find sufficient ground to condone the delay in filing the appeal. 3. Accordingly, the delay condonation application is allowed. The delay in filing the special appeal is hereby condoned. 4. By way of this special appeal, the appellants who are the petitioners before the learned Single Judge have prayed that the effect and operation of the order dated 09.04.2009 passed by respondent No. 2 - The Chief Information Commissioner, Uttarakhand Information Commission, Dehradun in Second Appeal No. A-1350 of 2008 whereby Information Commissioner has imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the appellants and initiate the departmental action against appellant No. 1 in utter disregard to the facts and circumstances of the case. 2 5. Heard Sri P.C. Bisht, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Vipul Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and perused the record. 6. Sri P.C. Bisht, learned counsel who is appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that the learned Single Judge has rejected the interim relief application without giving any reason, which has caused a serious grievance to the appellants. 7. Having considered the submission raised by learned counsel for the appellants, we are of the view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not need any interference at this stage. The learned Single Judge has specifically recorded a finding that when the information was sought from the authorities concerned with regard to the report of Dixit Commission, no such information was furnished. Therefore, prima facie penalty and damages imposed by the Information Commission appears to be in order. 8. However, the order dated 08.07.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge has not been challenged by way of this special appeal and the prayer made by the appellants in the special appeal is to set aside the order dated 08.05.2009 passed by the respondent No. 2 i.e. The Chief Information Commissioner. The order dated 08.05.2009 passed by the respondent No. 2 is still under challenge in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge, therefore, there is no question to enter into the merit with regard to the order dated 09.04.2009 by us in the special appeal. 3 9. For the reasons recorded above, we do not find any ground for indulgence at this stage. The special appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the special appeal is dismissed. (B.S. Verma, J.) (B.C. Kandpal, ACJ) 24.09.2009 ASWAL