Hon’ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.—Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Sharma holding brief of Sri Namit Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mohan Srivastava, learned standing counsel for respondent No. 1 and Sri Rahul Jain holding brief of Sri Kunal Ravi Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4.

Facts:

2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that to obtain certain informations the petitioner moved seven separate applications before different authorities/Offices as under :

      3. It is alleged by the petitioner that since the information as required by the aforesaid applications were not given by the concerned office/officer and as such the petitioner filed single appeal on 2.6.2015 before the Chief Information Commission, Indira Bhawan, Lucknow, which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 11.10.2017 on the ground that under Section 19(1) or under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), separate appeals shall lie against each decisions or non-submission of information.

4. Aggrieved with this order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

5. With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, this writ petition is being finally heard without calling for a counter-affidavit.

6. Learned counsels for the parties jointly state that following question is involved in this petition for determination which arises from the impugned order:

“Whether separate appeals under Section 19 of the Act shall lie from each application/decision, or, single appeal may be filed against several orders or non-submission of information pursuant to several applications?”

Submissions:

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that object of the Act is to provide information. Once the information has not been provided and a first appeal or second appeal as provided under Section 19(1) or Section 19(3) of the Act is preferred, it is wholly immaterial that such appeal is filed against several decisions or it arises from separate applications moved separately before different authorities. He submits that the Appellate Authority is bound to entertain the appeal and to give informations which have been required by the applicant/petitioner under separate applications filed before different authorities/offices.

8. Sri Mohan Srivastava, learned standing counsel and Sri Rahul Jain, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 jointly submit that in terms of Section 19 of the Act read with Rule 8 of the Right to Information Rules, 2012, Rule 7 of the U.P. Right to Information Rules, 2015 and Rule 3 of the U.P. State Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2006, separate appeals shall lie against each decision or against non-submission of information pursuant to each application.

9. On the query made by this Court as to whether there is any decision by this Court on the question involved in this petition, learned counse