JUDGMENT

Mr. Vikas Bahl, J.(Oral)

This is a civil writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the order dated 28.02.2023 passed by respondent no.2 (Annexure P-11) whereby second appeal under Section 19 (3) read with section 20 of the Right To Information Act, 2005 (in short "RTI Act") and complaint under Section 18 (1)(a) to (c) read with Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 has been disposed of. Challenge has also been made to the order dated 22.06.2022 (Annexure P-8) and order dated 07.03.2023 (Annexure P-12).

2. Petitioner, who is appearing in person, has submitted that he had filed an application dated 07.02.2022 (Annexure P-1) before the CPIO and after the reply was received from the CPIO, the petitioner being dissatisfied had filed first appeal dated 19.03.2022 (Annexure P-3). It is further submitted that since the entire information as sought by the petitioner had not been provided, thus, the petitioner preferred a second appeal dated 21.05.2022 under Section 19 (3) read with Section 20 of the RTI Act and copy of the same has been annexed as Annexure P-7 in which several prayers were made by the petitioner including the prayer to direct the CPIO to supply the requisite information and also to impose a penalty of Rs.25,000/- on the concerned CPIO under Section 20 (1) of the Act. It is stated that the Central Information Commission, vide order dated 28.02.2023 (Annexure P-11) disposed of the appeal filed by the petitioner after observing that no final pointwise reply was provided to the petitioner and directing the CPIO to provide a final consolidated reply on all the points as provided by the concerned custodians within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order. It is further stated that the Information Commissioner should have kept the appeal pending and after seeking response from the CPIO and after hearing the petitioner as well as all the concerned parties, the Information Commissioner should have then finally adjudicated the matter. It is submitted that after the said appeal was disposed of, the CPIO vide letter dated 07.03.2023 (Annexure P-12) has filed a reply which also does not satisfy the claim of the petitioner. It is submitted that since the appeal has been disposed of by the Information Commissioner, thus, the petitioner does not have any statutory forum under the 2005 Act to pursue his case. It is further submitted that since the appeal filed before the Central Information Commission was the statutory second appeal, thus, it was incumbent upon the Information Commissioner to have considered the entire matter after calling for the reply from the CPIO and after hearing all the concerned parties. It is stated that in case the Information Commissioner is of the opinion that certain information cannot be provided, in accordance with law, then the reasons for the same are required to be mentioned in the order itself and that in case the Information Commissioner is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to the said information and the same is not being provided by the concerned officer, then appropriate action, in accordance with law, is required to be taken. It is further submitted that at any rate, the impugned order dated 28.02.2023 deserves to be set aside to the extent that the appeal has been disposed of without final adjudication of the matter.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4 has submitted that they have no objection to the said course of action, but has submitted that their pleas be also considered before any final order is passed by the Inform