Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—This writ petition has been filed as a Public Interest Litigation (hereinafter referred to as “PIL”) seeking following reliefs:

“a. Issue a writ of Certiorari thereby quashing the impugned Notification 2339/39-4-2010-21/05, dated 22/09/2010 issued by the Respondent, Principal Secretary, Vigilance, Government of Uttar Pradesh as contained in Annexure 1 through which the Vigilance Department and Uttar Pradesh Vigilance Establishment have been brought out of the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

b. Issue a writ of Certiorari thereby quashing the impugned Notification 1679/39-4-2012-21-05 dated 3.8.2012 issued by Principal Secretary, Vigilance, Government of Uttar Pradesh as contained in Annexure 2 through which the Lokayukta agency has been brought out of the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005.”

2. While entertaining the writ petition on 1.3.2013, this Court found that so far as first relief is concerned, it was already negated in another matter, i.e, PIL No. 63607 of 2010 and in that view of the matter, prayer (a) stood rejected.

3. Dr. Smt. Nutan Thakur, petitioner, appearing in person could not dispute that this petition is presently alive only with respect to prayer (b) and accordingly parties addressed this Court on this aspect alone.

4. By Notification dated 3.8.2012 issued by State of U.P. published in U.P. Gazette Extraordinary and in purported exercise of power under Section 24(4) of Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 2005”), State of U.P. has put ‘Lokayukta’, established under provisions of U.P. Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as “U.P. Act, 1975”) beyond the purview of Act, 2005. Challenging aforesaid Notification, petitioner submits that ‘Lokayukta’ is not an Organization of the nature covered under Section 24(4) of Act, 2005 which can be excluded or exempted from Act, 2005, hence Notification dated 3.8.2012 is ultra vires of Act, 2005.

5. Petitioner submits, when something is for public benefit, and, community at large has some kind of interest therein by which their legal rights and liabilities are affected, the same cannot be curtailed by Government since citizens also share interest in general affairs of State. She referred to various authorities stating that right to information is an integral part of “right of free speech and expression” under Article 19(1)(a) read with Article 21 of Constitution of India and unless information is supplied, citizens would not be able to enjoy their fundamental rights effectively. The impugned Notification is nothing but renders such fundamental right illusory. It would result in curtailment thereof in a wholly unreasonable and arbitrary manner. It is contended that Section 24 (1) of Act, 2005 is applicable to Intelligence and Security organizations specified in Second Schedule established by Central Government or State Government and ‘Lokayukta’ does not satisfy the description of nature of Organizations which are referred to in Section 24(1) and 24(4) of Act, 2005.

6. Taking support from proviso to Section 24(4) of Act, 2005, petitioner further submitted that first proviso to Section 24(1) excludes the power of exemption where information is pertaining to allegations of corruption. ‘Lokayukta’ and its agencies are connected with information pertaining to allegations of corruption etc. of ‘public servants’, hence the said Organization could not have been excluded under Section 24(4) of Act, 2005 and impugned Notification is patently illegal and ultra vires of Act, 2005. She has also placed before us various provisions of U.P. Act, 1975 under which ‘Lokayukta’ and Up-Lokayuktas are constituted to show that this Organization is such, which, by no stretch of imagination, can be included within the ambit of Section 24(4) and hence could not have been excluded from the purview of Act, 2005. She contended that objective of Act, 2005 is to bring transparency in the sys