IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1750 of 2010. Ahmad Ali S/O Late Sri Mohd. Yusuf Khan. … Petitioner. Vs. State Information Commissioner and two others. …Respondents. Mr. Arvind Vashist, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 2. Date October 20, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 16- 7-2010 passed by respondent no. 2 and communicated vide letter dated 2-8-2010 by respondent no.1, in Appeal No. A-2477/2009. The grievance of the petitioner, as set out in the writ petition, is objections were filed against the show cause notice before the respondent no.1 that while passing the impugned order, the respondent no. 2 has acted in a biased manner there being a close intimacy between Dr. R.S.Tolia (the then Chief Information Commissioner) and the respondent no. 3 as both of them are residing in the same locality. Averment to this effect had also been made in the objection filed by the petitioner before the respondent no. 1 and prayed that the appeal be heard by the other State Information Commissioner, but the respondent no. 2 himself decided the appeal. According to the petitioner, propriety demands that if other Commissioner competent to decide the appeal was available, the appeal ought to have been heard and decided by the said Commissioner. 2 Without entering into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice the impugned order dated 16-7-2010 passed by the respondent no. 2 is quashed and the appeal be remanded for a decision afresh to the respondent no. 2, since Mr. R.S. Tolia, the then Chief Information Commissioner has already retired. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The matter is remanded to the respondent no.2-Chief Information Commissioner, Uttarakhand, Dehradun, who shall decide the appeal afresh expeditiously as far as possible after hearing both the parties and without being influenced by the earlier order passed by the then Chief Information Commissioner. Both the parties shall co-operate in the early disposal of the appeal. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP