1 WP2104/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2104 OF 2010 Syed Arshad Ali ...Petitioner v/s State Information Commissioner and anr. ...Respondents Petitioner in person present. Mr D.L. Nalawade, GP for Respondents. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND N.D. DESHPANDE JJ. DATE : 10TH JANUARY 2011. 2 WP2104/10 P.C. :- 1] The petitioner by this petition makes a grievance against the order dated 15th February 2010 passed by the State Information Commissioner, Mumbai under the Right to Information Act 2005. The petitioner, among other things, had sought certain information regarding Haji Abdul Rahim Sadariyawala Trust. That information was not furnished to him by the Public Information Officer and the First Appellate Authority. Therefore, he filed second appeal before the State Information Commissioner. That appeal was disposed off by order dated 27th February 2009. Following portion from that order is relevant for our purpose, it reads as under :- The appellant did not turn up but the respondent was present. The appellant has contended that information regarding Haji Abdul Rahim Sadariyawala Trust has not been furnished. In his application to the Public Information office and the First 3 WP2104/10 Appellate Authority he has stated that schedule I of the trust has to be are written with the help of the existing file but same is not being done. Respondent contention is that the record is in a fragile condition. The PIO in his letter dated 03.12.2007 states that information was being collected. After going through the case papers and considering the arguments advanced by parties, I have come to the conclusion that the information sought by the appellant must be furnished. It is hoped that the work of collection of information should be over by now. The compiled information must be furnished to the appellant. I therefore pass the following order. Order The appeal is allowed. Information to be furnished by PIO within 30 days. 4 WP2104/10 Thus, by order dated 27th February 2009, a direction was issued by the State Information Commissioner to supply to the petitioner information in relation to the aforementioned Trust. Pursuant to this order, the petitioner submitted application to the First Appellate Officer for supply of the information. The First Appellate Officer by communication dated 14th September 2009 informed the petitioner that the aforementioned Trust is transferred to the Wakf Board at Aurangabad and all record and proceedings have also been transferred to Wakf Board at Aurangabad and therefore, he should approach the Wakf Board, Aurangabad. Thus, the information though directed to be supplied to the petitioner, was not supplied despite the order of the State Information Commissioner. The petitioner therefore made a application to the State Information Commissioner for enforcement of its own order by supplying the information to the petitioner. That application was disposed off by order dated 15th February 2010. It is the last paragraph of that order which is relevant for our 5 WP2104/10 purpose. It reads as under :- The relevant papers with regard to the information sought by the complainant are not available in the office of respondent. All relevant papers have been transferred to Wakf Board. The respondent reiterated showing the noting of transfer to the Commissioner. The copy of said noting has been given to the complainant. In the circumstances, I pass the following order :- Order The complaint is disposed off. Thus, the State Information Commissioner noting that the records have been transferred to the Wakf Board, Aurangabad, disposed off the complaint. The submission of the petitioner, who appears in person, is that if the Wakf Board is successor of the Trust, the order made by the State Information Commissioner is binding on the Wakf Board, the State 6 WP2104/10 Information Commissioner should have enforced its order by directing the Wakf Board to supply information if the information is in possession of the Wakf Board. The State Information Commissioner, however, disposed off the application of the petitioner, virtually reviewing its earlier order directing supply of information to the petitioner. It may be pointed out here that admittedly in the Act, there is no suo motu power of review conferred on the State Information Commissioner. Therefore, we issued notice to the State Information Commissioner. The learned counsel appearing for State Information Commissioner submitted a note signed by the Section Officer of the State Information Commissioner. In that note, it is stated that by order dated 15th February 2010, the earlier order has not been reviewed but a fresh order has been made under section 18 of the Right to Information Act. Perusal of provisions of section 18 shows that it contemplates orders being made by the authorities for supply of information on the application of an applicant. In the present case, 7 WP2104/10 an application was made by the petitioner and in the second appeal, the State Information Commissioner had made an order in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the power of the State Information Commissioner under section 18 of the said Act stood exhausted. The application of the petitioner was for implementation of the order of the Commissioner. In our opinion, therefore, the State Information Commissioner had no power virtually to set aside its earlier order. In these circumstances, in our opinion, following order is made to meet the ends of justice. 2] The order impugned in the petition is set aside. The State Information Commissioner is directed to take steps to supply the information to the petitioner to which he has been held entitled by the order of that Commissioner dated 27th February 2009 as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within a period of six weeks from the date on which the writ of this order is served on the State Information Commissioner. Rule is made absolute 8 WP2104/10 with no order as to costs. Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Associate / Private Secretary of this Court. Certified copy expedited. ( JUSTICE D.K. DESHMUKH ) ( JUSTICE N.D. DESHPANDE )