Virendra Kumar, J. - (1.) Heard Ms. Nutan Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Shikhar Anand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 as well as the learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) This writ petition has been instituted on behalf of petitioner for quashing the impugned order dated 18.08.2017 passed by Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission in Second Appeal No. S3/265 /A/2016 by issuing a writ of certiorari. It is also prayed that a writ in the nature of mandamus or other appropriate writ or direction be issued against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to provide all the documents sought by the petitioner through 12 applications moved by him under Section 6(1) of Right to Information Act, 2005.
(3.) It is pleaded that the petitioner filed 12 applications before the respective authorities under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the 'RTI Act') and had sought certain important informations as regards secret and open vigilance inquiry held against him under the directions of the State Government. The concerned authorities denied these informations on various grounds, therefore, the petitioner presented second appeal under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the U.P. State Information Commission. The Commission missed all the provisions of law associated with the case and blindly endorsed the stand taken by these authorities without making proper evaluation of the facts and the provisions of law. The PIOs/ Information Officers could never properly explain the reasons as to why they are denying the information and the Commission also did not appreciate the fact that as per Section 19(5) of the Act, the onus for explaining why information is being denied lies solely on the PIOs, who are denying it. The Commission erroneously shifted the burden of proof on the petitioner and said that since the petitioner was not able to establish the violation of human rights and corruption, hence his case is not covered under the first proviso of Section 24(4) of the RTI Act. The PIOs never explained why and how providing the information sought would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. The PIOs and the Commission erroneously assumed that the information sought through all the 12 RTI applications are one and the same and applied the same grounds and reasons to deny information in each of these cases, while the truth is that each of these RTI applications are different from each other and the same grounds and reasons could not be applied to them in a blanket manner. The impugned order dated 18.08.2017 is completely incorrect and bad in the eye of law.;