Heard Arvind Vashisth, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri Vipul Sharma, Advocate for the respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital through its Registrar General praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 9.11.2009 as well as order dated 3.12.2009 by which the State Information Commission has taken notice on the appeal filed under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act before it by respondent no. 3 and had issued notices to High Court and consequently directed the High Court to supply information sought by respondent no. 3 in ‘Hindi’ language.

3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent no. 3 sought three informations from the High Court vide his application dated 4.6.2009. The first information sought was as to whether certain persons (who have been named in the application, let us say, A, B, C, D, E, F, & G) have anything to do with the case no. 4774 (M/S) of 2001 (Old No. 11980 of 1991). The second information sought was as to whether the Administrative authorities and other authorities can interfere with an order of the High Court which was passed in the year 1991 and if they do so whether it would amount to contempt, etc. The third information sought was as to how much time does a case which is pending in a land dispute normally takes before it is decided by a High Court. This application was in Hindi and respondent no. 3 specifically requested vide a note in the application that the entire information should be given to him in “Hindi”.

4. However, there cannot be any dispute regarding the fact that the first information which was sought by respondent no. 3, as referred above, amounts to an “information” as defined Right to Information Act, 2005 and was therefore liable to be furnished by the High Court. The Public Information Officer of the High Court supplied this information, though not directly in a clear question answer form, as the Rules framed by the High Court provide but by stating that the list of memo of parties as amended in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 4774/2001 (Old No. 11980/1991) Smt. Rani Padma Devi and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and other is being enclosed. All the same, whether this was the correct way of supplying the information is not an issue here. The relevant issue will be discussed shortly. The second information, prima facie, could not be given by the Public Information Officer of the High Court as it was more in the nature of an opinion. Regarding information no. 3 it was said that “no time is fixed”. All the same, what has to be noted here is that although the information was sought in Hindi, this information, was supplied by the Public Information Officer in “English”. Consequently, respondent no. 3 filed an appeal before the appellate authority. The main grievance of the applicant in his appeal was that the information has been given to him in “English” language though he has specifically requested that this should be given to him in “Hindi”. The Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court has been nominated as the appellate authority under the Act. The appellate authority after issuing notices to the parties heard the appeal and decided it vide his order dated 25.7.2009. The appeal has been dismissed on the ground that respondent no. 3 failed to show as to how the High Court is bound by the statute i.e. The Right to Information Act, 2005 to supply information in Hindi, even if it is specifically asked for, and since respondent no. 3 could not show any provision under the Right to Information Act, the request of respondent no. 3 to supply information in Hindi was held to be baseless and it was held that the appeal had no merit. Moreover, what has also clearly outweighed all other provisions of law in the mind of the appellate authority while dismissing this appeal was his clear cut view, which is reflected in his order, that the “language of the High Court is English”!, and he is not liable to supply “informa