IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 91 of 2010 (PIL) Jan Hakdari Manch, Uttarakhand ….…… Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and another ………. Respondents Mr. Gopal K. Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel for the State / respondent No. 1. Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 2. Date of Judgment: 31.10.2011 JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, J. BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (ORAL) By a letter dated 18th October, 2010, respondent No. 2 has been appointed as the Chief Information Commissioner of the State of Uttarakhand. In the letter, it has been mentioned that respondent No. 2 shall hold office of the Chief Information Commissioner of the State of Uttarakhand for a term of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office. 2. In the instant writ petition, it is being contended by the petitioner that the said appointment of respondent No. 2 is contrary to law, in as much as at the time of the said letter respondent No. 2 was 61 years old. It is the contention of the petitioner that in terms of Section 16 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, no State Chief Information Commissioner can hold office after he has attained the age of 65 years. It is being contended that since respondent No. 2 will attain the age of 65 years within five years from the date of his appointment, the appointment of respondent No. 2 is not sustainable in law. 3. Sub-Section (1) of Section 16 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 is as follows: “(1) The State Chief Information Commissioner shall hold office for a term of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office and shall not be eligible for reappointment: 2 Provided that no State Chief Information Commissioner shall hold office as such after he has attained the age of sixty-five years.” In terms of the mandate of the said section, the term of office of the State Chief Information Commissioner is five years. Accordingly, there was nothing wrong in indicating in the appointment letter that the term of office of respondent No. 2 as State Chief Information Commissioner shall be of five years. Proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 16 of the 2005 Act imposes a personal disablement on the part of the State Chief Information Commissioner. 4. In such view of the matter, no sooner respondent No. 2 will attain the age of 65 years, he would become ineligible to continue to remain as the State Chief Information Commissioner despite his letter of appointment. 5. With the clarification as above, we dispose of the writ petition. (U.C. Dhyani, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 31.10.2011 31.10.2011 Amit