The court cannot compel the production of records under the RTI Act if the authority has demonstrated efforts to find them and the applicant has verified their non-availability, provided there is no evidence of mala fide destruction.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. RULE. Learned counsel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respective respondents.

2. With the consent of learned counsel for both the sides, the present petition is taken up for final hearing.

3. Present petition is filed by the petitioners under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereafter be referred to as “the RTI Act”) seeking following reliefs:-

[A] YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India declaring impugned orders dated 10.03.2023, 26.04.2023 and 08.11.2023 as illegal, unjust, unreasonable, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and further be pleased to quash and set aside the said impugned orders dated 10.03.2023, 26.04.2023 and 08.11.2023 so far as they reject to provide information relating to Entry No. 305 of village form No.6 of village Haripara (Tarbada), Taluka: Lodhika,District: Rajkot on the spacious plea that it is not available.

[C] YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to grant an interim relief directing the respondents to scrutinize the record relating to Entry No. 305 of village form No. 6 of village Haripara (Tarbada), Taluka: Lodhika, District: Rajkot in order to find out the same and provide the same to the petitioners during the pendency and final disposal of the aforementioned petition before this Honourable Court, in the interest of justice.

[D] YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to grant an interim relief in terms of Clause (C) above during the pendency and final disposal of the aforementioned petition before this Honourable Court.

[E] YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to pass any other rand further order(s) and grant any other and further relief(s) that may be deemed fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

4. Brief facts of the present case are, in nutshell, as under:-

4.1 That one Panchabhai Thebabhai is the forefather of the petitioners and others, who was holding lands of different survey numbers admeasuring 58 Gunthas at Village Haripar (Tarbada), Taluka: Lodhika, District: Rajkot and father of the petitioners and others namely Arab Pancha, Rana Pancha, Sumaru Pancha, Hasam Pancha and Mamad Pancha thereafter were holding the ancestral lands jointly; the fathers name entered in Village Form No.6 vide entry No.2 and entry No.33 was recorded as per the new measurement. That since Arab Pancha, Sumaru Pancha, Hasam Pancha and Rana Pancha had expired before October 1967, the name of legal heirs were entered into Village Form No.6 vide entry No. 109 and entry No.135 was entered of Adam Mamad as Khatedar. Arab Pancha, Rana Pancha, Sumaru Pancha and Abhram Pancha had made an application to forgo their share from the land and entry No. 262 to that effect was mutated, but the same was rejected on the reason that Hasm Pancha had not given his confession and entry No.305 mutated recording that names of Arab Pancha, Sumaru Pancha, Abhram Pancha and Hasam Pancha were deleted since they had given an application forgoing their share from the lands and only Adam Mamad name remained in Village Form No.6 in respect of the ancestral properties.

4.2 That the petitioners along with other heirs of Pancha Theba had filed suits challenging the entry No. 262 and 305 and then the application under RTI Act filed before respondent No.2 and relevant information provided exce