^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B. HON'BLE SHRI DHIRENDRA MISHRA, & HON'BLE SHRI R.N.CHANDRAKAR, JJ Petitioner Versus Writ Petitlon (c) No. 654 of 2008 Public Information Officer, CSEB Head Quarter, Through Executive Engineer, R/o Joint Secretary (S), CSEB, Dangania, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) i. 2. Mohan Anti, R/o 12/1210, Near Raman Mandir, Fafadih, Raipur(CG) Chhattisgarh State Informatipn Commission, Meera Datar Road, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (CG) Present: Shri Sushobhit Singh, counsel forthe petitioner. Shri Kasif Shakil, counsel for respondent No.1. Shri MPS Bhatia, Dy. Govt. Advocate for respondent No.2/State. ORAL ORDER ;th (17mJanuary,2011) PerDhirendra Mishra, J iy this petition under .Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has impugned the order of Annexure P/1 passed by Chhattisgarh Information Commissiorr, Raipur (in short "Commission"), whereby the second appeal preferred by the respondent No.1 herein against the order (Annexure P/5) of the appellate authority has been aliowed and the petitioner has been directed to permit respondent No.1 inspection ofthe files relating to recommendations of the Committee constituted for pay revision free of cost within 15 days from the date of passing oftheorder. It was further directed that the petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs.300/- to respondent No.1 by way of compensation. 2. The impugned order.has been questioned on the ground that Section 15(2) bf the Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short "the Act") mandates that the State Information Commission is to be a rnultimember body consisting of State Chief Information Commissioner and at least one State information Commissioner, whersas the impugned order dated 30 November, 2007 has been passed by She State Chief information Commissioner, which is in contravention ofSection 15(2) of the Act. . .3. . Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that from bare reading of sub-section (2) of Section 15, it is evi^lent that the Commission ai!-]. /'.f^\ .\^s^? ^ - consists of State Chief Information Commissioner and some State information Commissioners. The maximum number of State Information Commissioners to be appointed is ten. Thus, intsntion of the legislature js very ctear that the State Information Commission should be a multimember 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submit that in the meanwhile, the State has already appointed the State Information Commissioner and the Commission in the State is a multimember body'. However, the order of the State Chief Information Commissioner cannot be seS at naught on the ground that the order has not been passed by a muit- member bodyas per Section 15(2) ofthe Act. 5. . Heard iearned counsel for the parties. 6. . The only issue that has been raised In this petition is - whether the impugned order of Annexure P/1 passed by the State Chief Information Comrnissioner can be quashed oniy on the ground that the same has been passed by the State Chief Information Commissioner alone, and not by the multimember Commission? 7. Section 15 of the Act deals with constitution of the Cornrnission. There is no dispute that the Commission now consists of State Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commlssioners and as such, a muitimember body. The question for our consideration is - whether any order passed by the Commission consisting of only State Chief tnformation Commissioner can be set at naught onfy on the ground that it has been passed by a Commission, which is not a multimember, as provided under Section 15(2) of the Act? In the matters of Virender Kumar Vs PS Rana and another, reported in AIR 2007 Hlmacha! Pradesh 63, while considering the above issue, the Hirnachal Pradesh High Court held that the actions, whlch have aiready been . taken by the Chief State Information Commlssioner cannot be set at naught only on the ground that the Commission is not a multimember body. 9. !n the instant case, the appeal preferred by respondent No.1 herein has been ailowed by the Cornmission consisting of only State Ghief information Commissioner. in our considered view, the directions issued by the Commission 'm favour of respondent No.1 cannot be set aside/quashed oniy because the Commlssion is not a muitimember body, uniess the order is i' n ,K'^.'-i ?'K i ''1: i 1!s, otherwise not in conformity with the provisions of the Act. In the present case, the Commission has allowed the appeal with a finding that the disclosure of information sought by the respondent No.1 does not fall within any of the exemptions enumerated under Section 8(1) of the Act. The petitioner has not impugned the above finding on any of the permissible jrounds. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief, as claimed in the petition; the petition is without any substance and the same is, accordingly, dismissed; Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra , Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge ^w- i^iii;i-s;-».; il ''''•.J-''"" :-.-.