Mr. Satish Kumar Mittal, J.:- The State Public Information Officer, Panchayat Department has filed the instant intra-court appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent against the order dated 13.5.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition (CWP No.8538 of 2011) filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 17.3.2011 (Annexure P-7) passed by the State Information Commissioner, Haryana-cum-Appellate Authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the RTI Act’), directing the appellant to supply complete information as per RTI application dated 17.8.2010, free of cost, to respondent No.2.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned order as well as the order dated 17.3.2011 passed by the State Information Commissioner, Haryana-cum-Appellate Authority.

3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 is a defeated candidate in the elections of Gram Panchayat Bakhtua, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala, which were held on 12.6.2010. He secured 335 votes against the elected candidate Sukhbir who had secured 339 votes and was declared elected. Undisputedly, respondent No.2 accepted the result of elections and did not file any election petition against the elected candidate under Section 176 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Panchayati Raj Act’).

4. Much after the elections, respondent No.2 filed an application before the appellant seeking the following information with regard to the above-said elections:-

(a) Full name and address of the voters who had casted their votes in the election of Gram Panchayat;

(b) Total number of votes casted booth wise;

(c) Total number of votes received by each contesting candidates.

5. The appellant supplied the requisite information at points (b) and (c) but the information at point (a) could not be supplied as the same (i.e. marked voter list used in the election) was not under his control and was sealed under Rule 73 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Election Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1994’) and lying deposited with the competent authority.

6. Respondent No.2 filed first appeal before the Appellate Authority under the RTI Act for non-supply of information at point (a). The said appeal was dismissed on 25.10.2010 while holding that the marked copy of the voter list is a part of the sealed record, and as per the instructions issued by the State Election Commission, Haryana dated 25.6.2010, only the Civil Court is the competent authority to order the opening of the sealed votes and marked voters list for which respondent No.2 can file the election petition. However, it was found that the information sought by respondent No.2 regarding total votes in favour of each candidate was supplied by Block Development and Panchayat Officer.

7. Feeling aggrieved against the said order, respondent No.2 filed second appeal before the State Information Commission, Haryana. The appeal was allowed and the appellant was directed to supply the complete information as per RTI application dated 17.8.2010, free of cost to respondent No.2 within 15 days, while observing as under:-

“ Appeal heard. Appellant appeared and argued that the required information has not been furnished so far and he further contended that the ground for denial is unjustified.

Sh. G.S. Sharma, State Public Information Officercum- Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Naraingarh appeared and contended that the requested information cannot be provided as per the Rule 73 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Election Rules, 1994.

In view of above submissions and on perusal of the record, Commission observes that the contention as raised by SPIO has no merit in view of the provisions as contained under Section 22 of the RTI Act.

It is hereby directed that State Public Information Officer-cum-Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Naraingarh shall furnish complete informatio