( 1 ) LEAVE to delete respondent Nos. 3 and 4 is granted.

( 2 ) RULE. Learned counsels for the respective parlies waive service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents.

( 3 ) THE present petition has been preferred to ventilate the grievances about misuse of powers vested in Chief Information commissioner, who is Second Appellate authority under the Right to Information act,2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the act. 2005" ).

( 4 ) THE present writ petition has been preferred against the order dated 14th june,2007 passed by Chief Information commissioner while hearing Second appeal No. 730 of 2006-07, in which, order of demolition has been passed by Chief information Commissioner.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No. 5 had applied for getting information under the Act,2005 to Public Information Officer i. e. Talati-cum-Mantri, Village:kheroli, taluka Virpur, District: Kheda i. e. respondent no. 4. His application under Section 6 of the Act. 2005 was dated 4th October,2006. Public Information Officer replied on 3rd november,2006 to the original applicant (present respondent No. 5 ). Being aggrieved by the reply/order of Public Information officer, First Appeal was preferred before taluka Development Officer on 15th november,2006. This Taluka Development officer has not given any number to this first Appeal and has replied on 11th december,2006 that Officers are busy with elections work. Being aggrieved by this, original applicant i. e. respondent No. 5 had preferred Second Appeal No. 730 of 2006-07 under Section 19 (3) of the Act,2005 before Chief Information Commissioner. Chief Information Commissioner passed an order on 14th June,2007 for removal of the encroachment and without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. No hearing has taken place before Chief information Commissioner. No other authority has arrived at a conclusion that the construction of the petitioner is an encroachment. Absolutely is arbitrary is the decision of the Chief Information commissioner. Whimsical is the approach of the Chief Information Commissioner. He has not kept in mind, bare principle of natural justice. Chief Information commissioner has not properly exercised his power, jurisdiction and authority under the Act,2005. At the most, information may be given or it may be denied under the act,2005 but the order of demolition cannot be passed by Chief Information commissioner under the Act. 2005.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner further submitted that when an authority under the Act,2005 is deciding anything about third party, then third party ought to be heard. The construction of the present petitioner is ordered to be demolished. No hearing was given to the petitioner by any of the authorities, neither by Public information Officer nor by First Appellate authority nor by Second Appellat. e authority and, therefore also the order dated 14th June,2007 passed by Chief information Commissioner in Second appeal No. 730 of 2006-07 deserves to be quashed and set aside. Whether there is any encroachment by the petitioner, was never the subject-matter under the Act,2005. Nobody has argued before Chief information Commissioner that the fact as to encroachment is already established and it should be removed. Whimsically and capriciously, Chief Information commissioner has acted in the matter. Powers ought to be exercised in accordance with the Act,2005. Chief Information commissioner has exceeded his jurisdiction. The present respondent no. 5 has asked for some information about the petitioner. In fact, no such information could have been given by Public information Officer, without following due procedure prescribed under Section 11 (1)of the Act,2005. By the impugned order, right of third party i. e. petitioner of preferring First Appeal and Second Appeal has also been taken away and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.

( 7 ) LEARNED counsel fo