IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 4670 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 15.09.2010 Sanjeev Malhotra ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Petitioner in person. Mr. B.S.Rana, Addl. A.G. Haryana for the respondents. **** MUKUL MUDGAL, C.J.(Oral) 1. Petitioner has filed this petition for issuance of directions to respondents to adopt following modes of services as prescribed under the Right to Information Act, 2005:- i) To serve all notices, orders and letters to all Public Authorities, appellants/complainants under the Right to Information Act, 2005 by speed post or registered post as prescribed in Rule 7 of the Haryana RTI Act, 2005 Rules, during the pendency of this petition. ii)To direct all Public Authorities under its jurisdiction to send/deliver all notices, orders and letters Under RTI Act, 2005 by speed post or registered post as prescribed in Rule 7 of Haryana RTI Act, 2005 Rules during the pendency of this petition. iii)To direct all Government Public Authorities to send/deliver all notices, orders and Letters in applications & appeals under RTI Act,2005 either by Speed Post or Registered post as prescribed in Rule 7 of the Haryana RTI Act, 2005 Rules during the pendency of this petition.” CWP No. 4670 of 2009 (O&M) [2] 2. Upon notice, State of Haryana has filed a reply stating that in most of the cases the service is being effected through couriers and in rural areas through U.P.C. On the last date of hearing i.e. 4.8.2010, we had opined that U.P.C. may not be entirely effective in dealing with service of notices and final orders. Today, an additional affidavit has been filed by Shri Yagya Dutt, Under Secretary, State Information Commission, Haryana on behalf of respondent No.1 which indicate as follows:- “3. That the State Information Commission, Haryana still undertakes that in case the complainants or the appellants who have been served notices through “Under Postal Certificate” service of the Department of Posts do not appear before the Commission on the date fixed for hearing, the complainants or the appellants, as the case may be, shall be served another notice through Registered Post in order to afford them an opportunity of hearing before deciding the request under Right to Information Act,2005.” 3. In view of the averments made in the additional affidavit, we are satisfied that the course of action adopted by the State Information Commission, Haryana does not call for any interference by this Court. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of. (MUKUL MUDGAL) CHIEF JUSTICE (AJAY TEWARI) 15.09.2010 JUDGE 'ravinder'