Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge

CAV Order

1. Heard Mr. Yashkaran Singh, learned counsel holding brief of Mr.Amrito Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Atul Kumar Kesharwani, learned counsel appearing for respondent-SECL as well as Mr. Pratik Modi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Shalvik Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 in WPC No.862/2021.

2. Since a common and identical question of law as well as fact is involved in all the present writ petitions, they were, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, clubbed together, heard analogously, and are being decided by this common order. The controversy raised in each of these petitions emanates from similar factual backgrounds and gives rise to overlapping legal issues, thereby making it expedient for this Court to adjudicate them together.

3. In all the writ petitions, the respective petitioners have called in question the legality, validity, and propriety of the orders passed by respondent No. 1 in second appeals under the Right to Information framework, though bearing different appeal numbers and, in some cases, varying dates. Notwithstanding such minor variations, the nature of the impugned orders, the grounds of challenge, and the reliefs sought by the petitioners are substantially identical. The principal grievance of the petitioners revolves around the correctness and sustainability of the impugned orders, and all petitioners have, in essence, sought calling for the entire records from the respondents and quashing of the respective orders impugned in their petitions.

4. It is also pertinent to note that the pleadings, documents placed on record, and submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties in all these matters are materially similar. The issues that arise for consideration are common and interconnected, and any separate adjudication of these petitions would not only lead to duplication of judicial effort but may also result in conflicting findings. Therefore, in order to maintain judicial consistency and avoid multiplicity of proceedings, this Court deems it appropriate to decide all these petitions by a common judgment.

5. By filing the present batch of writ petitions, the petitioner – DAV Public School (for short, ‘DAV School’), has called in question the legality, validity and propriety of the orders passed by respondent No. 1 in various second appeals, including but not limited to orders dated 28.09.2020 and 25.09.2020, bearing Second Appeal Nos. CIC/SECFL/A/2019/600831, 600834, 600832 and 600373. The impugned orders, though arising out of different appeal numbers, are substantially similar in nature and have been assailed on common grounds in all the petitions.

6. For the sake of convenience, the order dated 28.09.2020 passed in Second Appeal No. CIC/SECFL/A/2019/600831 is being treated as the lead impugned order, and the outcome of the present proceedings shall mutatis mutandis govern the connected matters as well. In WPC No.3145/2020, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs :-

“10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record from the respondents pertaining to issuance of the order dated 28.09.2020 (ANNEXURE P-1) passed by respondent No. 1 in Second Appeal No. CIC/SECFL/A/2019/600831.

10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ quashing and setting aside the order dated 28.09.2020 (ANNEXURE P-1) passed by respondent No.1 in Second Appeal No. CIC/SECFL/A/2019/600831.

10.3 Any other relief(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) in favour of petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.

10.4 Cost of the petition.”

7. In WPC No.3365/2020, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs :-

“10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record from the respondents pertaining to