A party should be afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard, especially in virtual hearings where technical difficulties may occur, before an appeal is decided on merits or closed, to ensure the principles of natural justice and complete justice are served.

[3209]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

The Court made the following ORDER:

Present Writ Petition is filed against Order dated 06.02.2026 passed by State Information Commissioner in Case No.11965/SIC-RB/2024.

1) Facts of the case in brief are, petitioner made an application on 23.07.2024, under Section 6 (1) of The Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act”), to the Public Information Officer-3rd respondent, seeking information pertaining to Junior Line Men (JLM) recruitment during 2006–07 and 2014. The request was rejected under Section 8 (b) of the Act.

2) Against this order, petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 19 (1) of the Act before 4th respondent herein. As no information was received from Appellate Authority, petitioner filed Second Appeal under Section 19 (3) of the Act.

3) Petitioner through notice dated 07.11.2025, was called upon to appear for hybrid hearing of Second Appeal to be held on 20.11.2025. Petitioner could not appear on the date fixed for hearing due to technical difficulties and as he was not well versed with virtual hearings. Learned State Information Commissioner, however, conducted hearing and passed Order dated 06.02.2026, with an observation that Public Information Officer-2 provided response to applicant and accordingly closed Second Appeal.

4) Learned counsel for petitioner submits that it is true, petitioner did not participate in the hybrid hearing on 20.11.2025, however, reason for the same is lack of knowledge / idea about virtual hearings. She submits that under the circumstances, petitioner on 09.12.2025 addressed a communication to the Office of State Information Commissioner about petitioner’s absence even before passing of order dated 06.02.2026. Since by the date of addressing communication, no order was passed, she submits that learned State Information Commissioner should have appreciated the said aspect and afforded an opportunity to petitioner to ventilate his grievance, however, in view of closure of Second Appeal on the premise that information sought was furnished by Public Information Officer-2, petitioner is subjected to serious prejudice and irreparable loss. Making the submissions, learned counsel seeks to allow Writ Petition by setting aside the impugned order.

5) Learned counsel representing State Information Commission submits that the impugned order was passed after affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner. Therefore, the same is legal, valid and does not suffer from any infirmity. Accordingly, he seeks dismissal of Writ Petition.

6) This Court has considered submissions made. Perused material on record.

7) It is not in dispute that the learned State Information Commissioner before taking up Second Appeal for hearing got the intimation / notice served on petitioner. It is also not in dispute that petitioner did not attend hearing on 20.11.2025. The reason assigned for not attending virtual hearing is that petitioner is not having clear idea about the same, as also due to technical reasons. Though said reasoning appear to be too informal, since a request was made on 09.12.2025 before passing of Order dated 06.02.2026, request of petitioner could have been considered. It may also be appropriate to note here that it is not a case where petitioner is continuously absent for hearings and not showing any interest to pursue Second Appeal. It appears that on the first date fixed for heari