The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment process of the Chief Information Commissioner must comply with the statutory provisions of Section 15(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, and should be conducted transparently.

T.S.Sivagnanam, J.

1. W.P.No.27665 of 2010 has been filed challenging the appointment of the 3rd respondent therein as the State Chief Information Commissioner as unconstitutional, illegal and violative of Section 15(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

2. W.P.No.27666 of 2010 has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Quo Warranto calling upon the 3rd respondent therein to show cause under what authority he holds the position of the State Chief Information Commissioner, Tamil Nadu.

3. W.P.No.12325 of 2011 has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to quash G.O.Ms.Nos.77 and 124 dated 17.04.2008 and 01.09.2010 respectively issued by the P&AR Department appointing respondents 3 to 6 therein as Commissioners in the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission as being arbitrary and violative of Section 15(3) of RTI Act, 2005.

4. At the very outset, we are of the view that insofar as G.O.Ms.No.77 dated 17.04.2008, which has been challenged in W.P.No.12325 of 2011 is concerned, it is a highly belated one, inasmuch as appointments of State Information Commissioners were made as far back as 17.04.2008 and the same is challenged now in the year 2011. Moreover, one of the respondents in the said writ petition viz., the 5th respondent, who has been appointed as Information Commissioner by the said G.O.Ms.No.77 dated 17.04.2008 has already retired on 23.07.2011. Hence, W.P.No.12325 of 2011 shall be confined only challenge to G.O.Ms.No.124 dated 01.09.2010 by which respondent - 6 therein was appointed as the Chief Information Commissioner.

5. Since in all these three writ petitions the appointment of 3rd/6th respondent as Chief Information Commissioner has been challenged and common questions of law and facts are involved, they are disposed of by this common order.

6. In W.P.Nos.27655 and 27666 of 2010 though separate prayers have been made, to quash the appointment of the 3rd respondent and for the issuance of a Writ of Quo Warranto against the 3rd respondent, yet the grounds raised are common and essentially the challenge is to the appointment of 3rd respondent as Chief Information Commissioner on the ground, inter alia, that the said appointment is at variance with the spirit of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short ‘Act’) and it is violative of constitutional mandates and principles of natural justice. It is further stated that Section 15(3) of the Act simply states that the appointment of State Information Commissioner would be by a Committee, and it does not provide for any guidelines to be followed in the matter of appointment of State Information Commissioner. Therefore, the appointment of the 3rd respondent as the Chief Information Commissioner without framing guidelines by way of rules or governmental order is arbitrary and illegal. It is further stated that in the absence of such rules or guidelines the government must have followed the rules applicable to appointment of a comparable post. It is further stated that the Leader of the Opposition was not even provided with the names of probable candidates before convening the meeting of the Selection Committee, and this violates the mandate provided under Section 15(3) of the Act, which clearly states that the appointment of Chief Information Commissioner must be in consonance with every known concept of transparency and openness, and therefore, the entire process of selection was grossly illegal and void. The appointment of 3rd respondent as the Chief Information Commissioner without the consent of the Leader of the Opposition is clearly illegal. Since, the government does not notify the vacancies and call for the applications from the interested eligible candidates, the entire selection process violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and therefore, it deserves to be set aside. Finally, it is stated that the selection of the 3rd respondent is a pre-determined and pre-conceived one, against the avowed object of transparency in the