The State Chief Information Commissioner which is a creature of the statute i.e. RTI Act, 2005, in exercise of its jurisdiction as an appellate authority cannot question the validity of the rules framed under the same statute i.e. RTI Act, 2005 in an appeal i.e. Appeal No.2 of 2015 against the order passed by the First Appellate Authority.

Heard Mr. A.K. Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Pathania, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. HS Thangkhiew, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Mozika, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 in person.

2. The respondent No.2 Shri. B. Bhattacharjee (Advocate) filed an application dated 07.08.2014 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short ‘the RTI Act, 2005’) to the Public Information Officer (for short ‘PIO’) i.e. writ petitioner No.2 for furnishing the information with regard to one Shri. Aman Sinha, who had been conferred the status of designated Senior vide Memo No. HCM II/168/2014/2018 dated Shillong, the 31st July, 2014 by the High Court of Meghalaya. The said application dated 07.08.2014 was rejected by the PIO i.e. writ petitioner No.2 vide order dated 02.09.2014 and also the Appeal No.1 of 2014 to the appellate authority i.e. writ petitioner No.1 against the said order dated 02.09.2014 had been dismissed vide order dated 13.11.2014. The said order dated 02.09.2014 for dismissing the said application filed by the respondent No.2 and also the order dated 13.11.2014 for dismissing the Appeal No.1 of 2014 were passed on only two reasons that: (i) the applicant/respondent No.2 is not the “affected person” and; (ii) the information asked for by the applicant/respondent No.2 cannot be disclosed under Rule 5 of the High Court of Meghalaya (Right to Information) Rules, 2013 (for short ‘the High Court of Meghalaya (RTI) Rules, 2013’). The “affected person” is mentioned in Rule 4 of the High Court of Meghalaya (RTI) Rules, 2013. The appeal against the order of the writ petitioner No.1 dated 13.11.2014 being Appeal No.2 of 2015 is pending before the State Chief Information Commissioner i.e. respondent No.1. A copy of the memo of Appeal No.2 of 2015 is also placed before this Court by the respondent No.2 and the same has been placed in the file of this writ petition. The questions fall for consideration in the present writ petition are:-

(i) Can the State Chief Information Commissioner i.e. respondent No.1 as an appellate authority under Section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005 decide the legality or otherwise of the High Court of Meghalaya (RTI) Rules, 2013? and;

(ii) if not, is the State Chief Information Commissioner i.e. respondent No.1 to decide the appeal i.e. Appeal No.2 of 2015 within the four corners circumscribed by the High Court of Meghalaya (RTI) Rules, 2013?;

(iii) in case, the above two questions are decided against the State Chief Information Commissioner i.e. respondent No.1, will the appeal i.e. Appeal No.2 of 2015 be liable to be dismissed?

3. This Court passed an order dated 26.03.2015 in the present writ petition relevant portion of which reads as follows:-

“26.03.2015

***** ***** *****

***** ***** *****

Mr. AK Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that under Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961, every Advocate shall be entitled as of right to practice throughout the territories to which the Act i.e. Advocates Act, 1961 extends (i) in all courts including the Supreme Court; (ii) before any tribunal or person legally authorized to take evidence and also that the respondent No.1 has all the trappings of the Tribunal and therefore, the right of the petitioners’ counsel (Advocate) cannot be denied by the respondent No.1 by passing the impugned order dated 18.03.2015. It is now well settled that the professional duty includes the counseling to client, legal opinions, drafting, affidavits, pleading and participating in Law Conference.

The Apex Court (Constitution Bench) in Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India & Anr: (1998) 4 SCC 409 held:

“61. According to Section 30, every Advocate whose name is entered in the State roll of advocates shall be entitled, as of right, to practise throughout the territories to which the Act extends, in all courts including the Supreme Court of India. Section 33 provides that no