RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.:—

1. The captioned writ petitions raises a common question of law, which is, whether the petitioners are obliged to furnish information to respondent which is retained with them in the record, in the form of file notings as also the opinion of the Judge Advocate General (in short JAG) found in records of the respondents, under the relevant provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short the RTI Act).

1.1 In each of the matters, the Union of India (UOI) has been represented by Mr. Rajeeve Mehra, ASG, while the respondents have appeared in person. Amongst the respondents, Col. V.K. Shad has appeared in person and made submission at each date, while the same cannot be said of the other two respondents, Col P.P. Singh and Brig. S. Sabharwal who have put in appearances occasionally. In particular, they were absent on the last two dates of hearing when matters were heard at length and the judgment was reserved in the matters. Nevertheless, it appears that, the said officers have adopted and are in sync, with the submissions made by Col. V.K. Shad.

1.2 The orders impugned in each of the captured writ petitions were those passed by the Central Information Commission (in short CIC). In WP(C) 499/2012, two orders are impugned. The principal order being order dated 15.06.2011, followed by a consequential order, dated 13.12.2011.

1.3 In WP(C) 1138/2012, there are, once again, two orders, which are impugned. The first order impugned is, the principal order, which is, dated 04.11.2011. This order follows the decision taken by the CIC in Col. V.K. Shad's case. The second order is dated 05.01.2012, which actually, only records, the fact that the matter had been concluded by the order dated 4.11.2011, and that the registry of the CIC had mistakenly relisted the matter. The order however, also goes on to record the fact that, a written representation was submitted on behalf of the petitioners herein that, they be given, thirty (30) days time to comply with the order of the CIC.

1.4 In the third and last writ petition being: WP(C) 1144/2012, the order impugned is dated 9.6.2011.

1.5 In each of these matters, the impugned orders have been passed by the same Chief Information Commissioner.

2. Though the question of law is common, for the sake of completeness, I propose to briefly touch upon the relevant facts involved in each of the matters, which led to institution of the instant writ petitions.

2.1 For the sake of convenience, however, each of the respondents in their respective writ petitions will be referred to by their name. WP(C) NO. 499/2012

3. Col. V.K. Shad was posted to the Army Core Supply Battalion 5628 in September, 2008. Evidently, he fell out with his deputy, one, Lt. Col. B.S. Goraya. Col. V.K. Shad had issues with regard to Lt. Col. B.S. Goraya, which in his perception impacted the functioning in the unit. Lt. Col. B.S. Goraya, on his part made counter allegations against Col. V.K. Shad qua issues which he regarded as infractions of standard operating procedures governing the functioning of the personnel inducted into the army.

3.1 Consequently, in May, 2009, a Court of Inquiry was ordered by the Head Quarter, Western Command, to investigate, charges of alleged acts of indiscipline leveled by Col. V.K. Shad against Lt. Col. B.S. Goraya as also counter charges made by Lt. Col. B.S. Goraya against Col. V.K. Shad.

3.2 The inquiry against Col. V.K. Shad pertained to the following:

"(i) Failure to follow laid down procedure with respect to sale of BPL watches, as a non CSD item between October, 2008 and March, 2009.

(ii) Accepting money in Regt Fund Acct amounting to Rs 27,133/- (Rupees twenty seven thousand one hundred and thirty three only) as sponsorship from CSD Liquor Vendors between January and February 2009.

(iii) Improperly passed instructions to JC-664710W Nb Sub AR Ghose of 5682 ASC Bn, JCO in-Charge AWWA Venture Shop, to not to charge the profit of 5% on the sale of fruits and vegetables to MG-IC-Ad