C.W.P.No.20638 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-7.2.2011 The Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh ...Petitioner Versus Central Information Commission and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Rajiv Narain Raina, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Keshav Kaushik, Advocate-respondent No.2 in person. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J. (Oral) The epitome of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that Keshav Kaushik (respondent No.2) sought information, copies of answer sheets and other documents relating to the recruitments of Additional District and Sessions Judges in the State of Haryana, invoking the provisions of The Right to Information Act, 2005. The same was declined by the Assistant Public Information Officer (for brevity “APIO”) of petitioner-High Court, vide order dated 29.5.2008 (Annexure P2). 2. Aggrieved by the order (Annexure P2), respondent No.2 filed the appeal (Annexure P3), which was dismissed as well, by the First Appellate Authority (for short “FAA”), by virtue of order dated 16.8.2008 (Annexure P5). The second appeal filed by respondent No.2 was accepted by the Central Information Commission (for brevity “CIC”), by way of impugned order dated 21.11.2008 (Annexure P8). 3. The petitioner-High Court did not feel satisfied and instituted the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned order (Annexure P8), invoking the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. C.W.P.No.20638 of 2008 2 4. At the very outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner-High Court contended with some amount of vehemence that as the CIC did not have the jurisdiction to decide the appeal against the judgment of FAA, therefore, the impugned order (Annexure P8) is not only illegal but without jurisdiction as well. 5. Faced with the situation, respondent No.2 (in person) has fairly conceded that since the CIC did not have the jurisdiction to hear the appeal against the judgment (Annexure P5) of FAA, so, the impugned order (Annexure P8) be set aside and he be permitted to file the appeal before the appropriate Forum in this context. 6. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the instant writ petition is accepted. Consequently, the impugned order (Annexure P8) is hereby quashed, being without jurisdiction, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 7. Needless to mention here that if respondent No.2 files the appeal alongwith an application for condonation of delay before the appropriate Forum, then, the same will be considered sympathetically in accordance with law. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 7.2.2011 Judge AS