V.M. Pancholi, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition in the nature of public interest litigation praying for the following reliefs:

"(1) To declare appointment of Shri Dilip Purushottamdas Thakar as illegal in terms of Section 12(5) of the Act and Judgment dated 12.02.2015 of this Hon'ble Court read with citations (2013)10 SCC 359.

(2) To appoint Screening Committee as mentioned in para 4 above as and when required to scrutinized applications of eligible candidate.

(3) To issue advertisement in News paper as mentioned in para 4 inviting applications for the post of Information Commissioner.

(4) To consider appointment of person of eminence as Information Commissioner from the candidates besides retired IAS Officers in terms of eligibility criteria as per Section 12(5) of the Act.

(5) To appoint within one month of the order third Additional Information Commissioner in place of Shri Thakar, if his appointment is set aside.

(6) To take punitive action against concerned official(s), keeping in view para 4.

(7) To direct Respondent No. 2 to fill up the post of Chief Information Commissioner on his retirement.

(8) Keeping in view para 4, direct Respondent No. 2 to submit clarification so that Hon'ble Court may give Direction as it deems fit."

2. This public interest litigation has been filed by one Jagte Raho party registered by the Election Commission of India and Gujarat Election Commission through its President. The President Mr. Praful K. Desai appeared in person. The petitioner has submitted that initially the petitioner filed Writ Petition (PIL) No. 65 of 2012 for appointment of two Additional Information Commissioners. In the petition, this Court passed an order on 14.8.2012 directing the respondent to appoint two Additional Information Commissioners. However, thereafter another Writ Petition (PIL) Nos. 143 and 271 of 2014 came to be filed challenging the appointment of the said two Information Commissioners. This Court set aside the appointment of the Information Commissioners, by an order dated 12.2.2015. It is further contended that the petitioners filed another Writ Petition (PIL) No. 118 of 2015 for appointment of Additional Information Commissioners and this Court passed an order on 21.12.2015 in the said petition. It is submitted that after passing of the order by this Court, two Additional Information Commissioners namely Mr. H.V. Patel, IAS (Retd.) and Mr. R.R. Vasani, IAS (Retd.) were appointed with effect from 13.4.2016. However, in the meantime, by notification dated 24.8.2016, the third Information Commissioner Mr. D.P. Thakar is appointed by the respondent-government. However, it is alleged that though respondent No. 1 herein-Mr. D.P. Thakar is not eligible for the appointment on the post of Information Commissioner, he is appointed by the respondent-State. The petitioner asked for information under the Right to Information Act whereby the General Administrative Department was to give inspection of all the processing papers for appointment as well as the bio-data of respondent No. 1-Mr. D.P. Thakar. Ultimately, on receipt of necessary information, it is found that the respondent No. 1-Mr. D.P. Thakar is not eligible as per the criteria prescribed in Section 12(5) of the Right to Information Act of 2005. (hereinafter referred to as 'RTI Act').

3. The petitioner referred to the provision contained in Section 12(5) of the RTI Act and contended that from the bio data of respondent No. 1-Mr. Thakar, it is revealed that in item No. 1, two columns namely field and details, in column field, it is mentioned that "Science and Technology, Social Service, Management, Journalism and Mass Media. These columns are blank-unanswered. In 'law', it is stated that Mr. Thakar has dealt with Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostics Technique (Prohibition of Sex Detection) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the PC &