Information Commission orders based on record-based disclosures and site inspections satisfy the Right to Information Act.

The petitioner, a social activist, filed multiple RTI applications with various authorities, including the District Collector and the Geologist, Gandhinagar, seeking information regarding actions taken against illegal mining and construction

Alleging that the information provided was incomplete or false, the petitioner approached the First Appellate Authority. Due to the petitioner’s absence on more than four occasions, the First Appellate Authority decided the matter on merits

The petitioner then preferred a Second Appeal before the Gujarat Information Commission (Respondent No. 2). The Commission dismissed the appeal on 28.06.2023, observing that record-based information had already been provided and the allegations of malpractice were baseless

The petitioner moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the Commission's order and seek directions for the provision of documents

1. Whether the order dated 28.06.2023 passed by the Gujarat Information Commission was erroneous, illegal, or passed in violation of the principles of natural justice

2. Whether the respondent authorities failed in their statutory duty to provide the information requested under the Right to Information Act, 2005

The court primarily applied Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which governs the adjudication of Second Appeals by the State Information Commission

The court relied on the principle that if a party fails to avail multiple opportunities for a hearing, a quasi-judicial body is justified in deciding the matter on the available merits

The court operated under the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which permits judicial review of administrative and quasi-judicial actions to ensure they are not arbitrary or procedurally flawed

The Court examined the procedural history and the findings recorded by both the First Appellate Authority and the Information Commission. It noted that the petitioner remained absent during the first appeal hearings on four separate occasions, justifying the ex-parte decision on merits

Upon reviewing the Commission’s order, the Court highlighted that the Public Information Officer (PIO) had already provided relevant responses, transferred applications to appropriate departments (such as the Flying Squad), and conducted site inspections in the presence of local officials

The Court agreed with the Commission’s finding that the petitioner’s application was more in the nature of a "representation" regarding grievances rather than a specific request for available records, and that all record-based information held by the state had effectively been disclosed

The Court found no procedural infirmity or illegality in the Commission's exercise of jurisdiction under Section 19

The Court answered both issues in the negative, finding no illegality or infirmity in the Commission's decision-making process

The relief for quashing the order and restoring the appeal was denied, and the Rule was discharged