Quasi-judicial authorities must provide clear, cogent reasons for their decisions to uphold principles of justice and ensure accountability.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Vikas Bahl, J.(Oral)

This is a civil writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 30.05.2019 (Annexure P-1).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, respondent No.3 had sought the information with respect to the complaint (Annexure P-3) filed under Section 9 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2013). It is submitted that SPIO, vide letter dated 28.11.2018 (Annexure P-4) had not given the said information in view of Section 16 of the said Act of 2013. The appeal filed by respondent No.3 was dismissed, vide order dated 09.01.2019 (Annexure P-5) on the same ground. It is submitted that the State Information Commissioner, Haryana, however passed an absolutely perverse and non-speaking order. It is submitted that it was perversely observed in paragraphs 2, 3 and 6 that the SPIO as well as the First Appellate Authority had failed to supply the information and failed to decide the appeal whereas the SPIO had refused to supply the information in view of Section 16 of the Act of 2013 and the First Appellate Authority had dismissed the appeal. It is further submitted that without considering the provisions of Act of 2013 or the Right to Information Act and without giving any reasons with respect to the controversy, the State Information Commissioner straightaway directed the SPIO to supply the said information. It is submitted that in view of the law laid down by this Court in CWP-17672-2023 titled Rajwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and others and the judgment dated 13.07.2023 passed in CWP-1877-2022 titled 'Gagnish Singh Khurana v. State of Punjab and others' as well as the judgment dated 21.07.2023 passed in CWP-15500- 2023 titled 'Gopal Krishan Gupta v. Central Information Commission and others', the impugned order is illegal, against law and deserves to be set aside. It is further submitted that the petitioner has a good case on merits also.

3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 has opposed the present petition and has submitted that the rejection with regard to supply of information by the SPIO as well as dismissal of the first appeal by the First Appellate Authority on the ground that the information is barred under Section 16 of the 2013 Act, is illegal and against the law and is misreading of the said provision. It is submitted that the said provision would not apply to the case of respondent No.3.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that the information sought by respondent No.3 has been rightly declined.

5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has gone through the paper-book.

6. It is not in dispute that the information sought by respondent No.3 by way of filing an application under the Right to Information Act (Annexure P-3) was to seek a copy of the complaint under Section 9 of the Act of 2013. The SPIO, vide letter dated 28.11.2018 (Annexure P-4) had refused to give the said information in view of Section 16 of the Act of 2013. The appeal filed by respondent No.3 was dismissed, vide order dated 09.01.2019 (Annexure P-5) by observing that the reply given by the SPIO was correct. The State Information Commissioner in the impugned order has perversely noticed in paragraphs 2, 3 and 6 that the SPIO had failed to supply the information and that the First Appellate Authority had also failed to decide the appeal whereas the SPIO had rejected the application of respondent No.3 for supply of information and the First Appellate Authority had dismissed the appeal filed by respondent No.3. Moreover, a perusal of the order dated 30.05.2019 (Annexure P-1) would show that the order, apart from being perverse, is also cryptic and non-speaking inasmuch as the issue as to whether the information is to be supplied or not and whether the