(Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.)

1. Both the Public Interest Litigations have been filed seeking issuance of writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the selection and appointment of respondent nos.3 to 6 as State Information Commissioners to the second respondent Commission as arbitrary, illegal, unreasonable, without application of mind, contrary to the provisions of Section 15(3) (5) and (6) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’) and the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NAMIT SHARMA v. UNION OF INDIA (2013 (1) SCC 745) and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and for setting aside G.O.Ms.No.75, General Administration, (RTIA/GPM&AR) Department, dated 06-02-2013 issued by the first respondent.

2. Bereft of unnecessary detail fact, the sum and substance of the allegation of the petitions is as under:

By the impugned orders, the first respondent appointed respondent nos.3 to 6 to the office of the second respondent Commission as State Information Commissioners. According to the petitioners, the decision making process adopted by the Selection Committee is not in accordance with the provisions of the said Act and lacks transparency and fairness. One of the Members of the Selection Committee, namely the Leader of the Opposition, raised objection suggesting to constitute a Search Committee and did not sign the minutes of the meeting. Without taking note of said objection and without having his signature, the Selection Committee has chosen respondent nos.3 to 6 as Information Commissioners.

As a matter of fact, His Excellency the Governor of Andhra Pradesh sent back the file for reconsideration to the Selection Committee. Inspite of the same, the Selection Committee, without considering the objection raised by His Excellency the Governor, illegally had chosen respondent nos.3 to 6 as above. In view of the Court orders passed in the previous writ petitions, His Excellency the Governor approved and signed the same.

3. Apart from the above infirmity and illegality in the decision making process, the petitioners have questioned the competency as to their qualification in the manner as follows:

Respondent No.4 is a political personality as he has been Congress Party leader for several years and three Ministers recommended his appointment as Information Commissioner. Respondent No.5 belongs to political party as he contested 2009 elections on TDP ticket against the present Chief Minister from Pileru Constituency in Chittoor District. Respondent No.6 is political party leader as he contested 2009 elections from Nuzvid Constituency in Krishna District on behalf of Praja Rajyam Party. The other two respondents likewise above three respondents also belong to Congress Party. Respondent Nos.3 to 5 are Advocates apart from their political allegiance. Thus they are disqualified under the provision of Section 15(6) of the said Act for appointment as Information Commissioners. It is further stated that the selection and appointment of respondent nos.3 to 6 as State Information Commissioners has been made without advertisement and without preparation of panels, which is contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Namit Sharma (supra).

The recommendation made by the Committee for their appointment was once rejected and returned by His Excellency the Governor. As per the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Namit Sharma (supra), the first respondent was mandated to prepare the panel from among the applications received after due advertisement and on a rational basis as declared therein. However, no such exercise was undertaken in the present case. Prior to the appointment of respondent nos.3 to 6, the second respondent was filled up with one State Chief Information Commissioner and four State Information Commissioners and all of them are only Expert Member