1. Heard.

2. Both these captioned writ petitions share a common background and involve the same issues, therefore, they were clubbed, heard together and are decided by this common order.

3. For the sake of convenience, Writ Petition (C) No. 5106 of 2021 is treated as the lead case for the purpose of disposing all the writ petitions. The petitioner in the said writ petition has prayed for the following reliefs :-

          "10.1 Issue appropriate writ/order/direction quashing impugned order dated 15.06.2018 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Respondent Commission in Second Appeal No. A/1116/2016.

          10.2 Pass such other order or orders that this Hon. Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

4. Facts of the case in brief is that the petitioner is a statutory body constituted under Section 3 of the Chhattisgarh Lok Ayog Adhiniyam, 2002 (for short, "the Adhiniyam, 2002"), having the character of a 'Sui Generis Quasi Judicial Authority' with investigative functions and empowered to conduct enquiries and make recommendations to the State Government. Respondent No.3 submitted an application dated 25.10.2014, received on 07.11.2014, seeking information regarding the details and particulars of recommendations made by the petitioner to the State Government against officers, employees and politicians since its constitution. The Public Information Officer (PIO), vide communication dated 21.11.2014, informed respondent No.3 that the information sought was not available in a readily accessible form and was neither required to be maintained nor preserved by the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, respondent No.3 preferred a First Appeal under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 22.12.2014; his subsequent application seeking restoration and rehearing of the appeal was also rejected on the ground that there was no provision for restoration. Thereafter, respondent No.3 preferred a Second Appeal before the State Information Commission, which, vide impugned order dated 15.06.2018, allowed the appeal and directed the petitioner to furnish the information sought within 30 days. The petitioner has challenged the said order on the ground that the State Information Commission failed to appreciate the objection raised by the PIO and the nature of information sought, and consequently, the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-Chhattisgarh Lok Ayog is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 15.06.2018 (Annexure P-1), whereby the Second Appellate Authority has directed the petitioner to furnish the information sought by respondent No.3/information seeker. It is submitted that respondent No.3, vide application dated 25.10.2014, sought information relating to the officers, employees and public representatives against whom the petitioner-Ayog had made recommendations for taking action, including their names, designations, places of posting and the action taken thereon by the State Government. He further submits that, from a bare perusal of the application, it is evident that respondent No.3 had not only sought information available with the petitioner-Ayog but had also sought information regarding the action allegedly taken by the State Government, which was not available with the petitioner. It is contended that the application was vague and not maintainable in the form in which it was submitted and, therefore, the information seeker was duly informed that, if any specific information available with the petitioner-Ayog was required, he ought to submit a separate and specific application, whereupon the information available on record could be furnished in accordance with law. Aggrieved by the response, respondent No.3 preferred a First Appeal, which was dismissed for want of prosecution on account of his non-appearance. Thereafter, he preferred a Second Appeal before the State Information Commission; however, the Second Appellate Authority failed to consider the aforesaid aspects and, without examining the nature and availability of the information sought, directed the petitioner to furnish the entire information as prayed for in the application. He next submits that the petitioner is obliged under law to furnish only such information as is available with or under the control of the petitioner and cannot be directed to furnish information which is neither maintained nor available with it, particularly information relating to action taken by the State Government. Accordingly, it is contended that the impugned order dated 15.06.2018 deserves to be set aside.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the impugned order has rightly been passed by the State Information Commission after considering the information sought by respondent No.3, and therefore, the same does not call for any interference by this Court.

7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, through video conferencing, submits that the impugned order dated 15.06.2018 was passed upon due consideration of the information sought by respondent No.3. It is submitted that the petitioner, being a public authority, is bound to provide the information available with it in accordance with the Right to Information Act, 2005, and the direction issued by the Commission is lawful and justified. He, therefore, submits that no interference with the impugned order is warranted.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the application dated 25.10.2014 submitted by respondent No.3/information seeker is vague in nature and seeks information beyond the records maintained or available with the petitioner- Ayog. The information seeker has not only sought details regarding the recommendations allegedly made by the petitioner- Ayog against officers, employees and public representatives, along with their names, designations and places of posting, but has also sought information regarding the enquiries and action taken by the State Government against such persons. Thus, the application also seeks information falling within the domain of the State Government, which the petitioner-Ayog cannot be directed to furnish unless the same is available with or under its control. It is further evident from the record that respondent No.3, despite being duly noticed, did not appear before the First Appellate Authority, resulting in dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution. In these circumstances, the Second Appellate Authority ought to have considered the specific objection raised by the petitioner regarding the vagueness of the application and the availability of the information sought. However, without examining whether the information sought was actually available with or under the control of the petitioner-Ayog, the Second Appellate Authority, vide impugned order dated 15.06.2018, directed the petitioner to furnish the entire information sought by respondent No.3. Such direction, in the considered opinion of this Court, cannot be sustained in law.

9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 15.06.2018 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and is hereby set aside. Consequently, both the petitions stand allowed.

10. Interlocutory application(s), pending, if any, also stands disposed of.