Sanjay Harkauli, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record.
(2.) Brief facts relevant to the controversy are that the petitioner vide application dated 23.12.2016 filed an application under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (''Act' in short) addressed to opposite party no. 3, the Public Information Officer, U.P.S.R.T.C., Lucknow. The petitioner in spite of having completed all necessary formalities, was not made available the required information even after passage of more than 30 days by the said respondent. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner filed a complaint in the prescribed proforma under Section 18 of the Act on 31.01.2017, a copy whereof is annexed as Annexure no. 5 to the petition. By the application under Section 18 of the Act of 2005, the petitioner prayed that respondent no. 3 be punished under Section 20 of the Act for failing to provide the desired information within the prescribed period. The said complaint was fixed for hearing on 01.06. 2017 before opposite party no. 2 wherein the petitioner submitted his written arguments which is annexed as Anneuxre no. 6 to the petition. Vide letter dated 01.06.2017, the opposite party no. 2 directed the respondents in complaint to furnish point-wise information to the petitioner in terms of the information sought by the latter within 10 days, failing which, the concerned was warned that punitive proceedings under Section 20(1) of the Act, 2005 would be initiated. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the complaint was posted for hearing on 15.06.2017. On the said date, in stead of proceeding under Section 18 of the Act, the opposite party no. 2 proceeded to direct opposite party no. 3 to furnish the requisite information to the petitioner and the petitioner in turn was required to be present in the office of respondent no. 3 on 19.06.2017 at 11 a.m. for perusing the documents available therein and obtaining the required information. The said order specified that the petitioner did not appear in the office of respondent no. 3 on 19.06.2017 to peruse the relevant documents, it would be deemed that the petitioner does not require information any more and the statutory complaint as aforesaid would be disposed of and the matter was posted for 26.06.2017. The said date was subsequently changed to 29.06.2017. The petitioner finding that the opposite party no. 2 was not proceeding in the manner prescribed by law in addressing his complaint under Section 18 of the Act, he did not appear before the opposite party no. 2 on the date fixed and it is on this count that the complaint of the petitioner was disposed of. It is accordingly prayed by the petitioner that the order dated 29.06.2017 as passed by respondent no. 2 disposing of the application of the petitioner under Section 18 of the Act, 2005 for non-prosecution be quashed and a mandamus be issued commanding respondents 1 and 2 to proceed strictly in terms of Section 18 of the Act of 2005 while entertaining the statutory complaint preferred by the petitioner.
(3.) Learned counsel for both the sides have been heard at length.;