J.B. Pardiwala, J.

1. By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the nature of a public interest litigation, the petitioner, a journalist by profession, seeks to challenge the order dated 4th September 2012 passed by the State Information Commission in exercise of its powers under Section 18 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, "the Act 2005"), by which the Commission dismissed the complaints lodged by the petitioner with respect to the duty of the public authority under the Act, 2005 to provide for proactive disclosure of the information maintained in its records. Although the State Information Commission refused to entertain the complaints filed by the petitioner, yet thought fit in exercise of its powers under Section 25(5) of the Act 2005 to issue directions to the various public authorities under the Act to ensure that there is due compliance of the provisions of Section 4(1), (a), (b), Section 4(2), Section 4(3) and Section 4(4) of the Act, 2005. It appears from the materials on record that the petitioner in person filed as many as 739 applications addressed to the various public information officers of the various departments of the State Government praying for a certified copy of the proactive disclosure published as the information under the provisions of the Act 2005.

2. Such applications which were filed by the petitioner in person were rejected on the following grounds:

(i) The public information officer demanded fees for the amount of Rs. 20/- for providing a copy of such information.

(ii) The public information officer has brought to the notice of the petitioner that such information is available on the website of the Gujarat Government.

(iii) Some of the public information officers declined to provide such copies on the ground that it was not permissible for them to supply the same.

3. Feeling dissatisfied with the stance adopted by the public information officers, the petitioner in person filed a complaint before the State Information Commission under Section 18 of the Act 2005.

4. The petitioner in person prayed for the following reliefs before the State Information Commission.

(i) Directions be issued to provide copies of the proactive disclosure without any fees.

(ii) Since the public authorities have violated the provisions of the Act the concerned public authorities be imposed with a fine of Rs. 250/- per day.

(iii) Necessary action be taken against the erring public authority in terms of Section 20 of the Act of 2005.

5. Before the State Information Commission, the petitioner in person submitted the following:

(i) It is the duty of the public information officer to provide for the information (proactive disclosure) free of cost and on regular basis.

(ii) It is the duty of the concerned officer to declare such information on his own without waiting for any person to demand for the same.

(iii) Such information should be provided at the earliest and in any case within a period of 30 days.

(iv) The officer may charge a token fee to obtain the copy of the information but for the purpose of inspection there should not be any demand for any fees and such inspection should be permitted.

6. It appears that the State Information Commission came to the conclusion that there was no substance in the complaints, and accordingly, rejected the same. However, as stated above, the State Information Commission also thought fit to issue directions in exercise of powers under Section 25(5) for the proper implementation of the provisions of the Act 2005.

7. Having heard the party-in-person and Mr. P.K. Jani, the learned Government Pleader assisted by Ms. Vacha Desai, the learned AGP appearing for the State-respondents and having gone through the materials on record, the only question that falls for our consideration in this petition is whether the State Information Commission committed any error in not entertaining the complaints filed by the petitioner.

8. We are not impressed by the submission