JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri Samir Sharma, Advocate, for petitioners and Sri Kunal Ravi Singh, Advocate, for respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by Sri Shamshad Ahmed, District Judge, Ghazipur (earlier working as Additional District Judge, Court No. 11, Etah, nominated as Central Public Information Officer) being aggrieved by orders dated 3.4.2014 and 16.10.2014 passed by State Information Commission in Complaint No. 5-2/3302(C)/2012. 3. One Lokendra Dwivedi filed an application dated 19.3.2012 in the Office of Central Public Information Officer, High Court, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as “CPIO, HC”) seeking following reliefs: ^^1- tuin U;k;ky; ,Vk esa o"kZ 1988 ls vkt rd tks&tks vf/kdkfj;ksa o deZpkfj;ksa dh HkfrZ;ka ijh{kk }kjk vFkok lh/kh HkrhZ }kjk gqbZ gksa] muds fy;s tuin U;k;ky; ,Vk us ftl&ftl i=kad ds ekè;e ls ek0 mPp U;k;ky; ls vuqefr ekaxks gks] mu lHkh dh izekf.kr Nk;kizfr;ka iznku djsaA 2- o"kZ 1989 dks tuin U;k;ky; ,Vk esa gqbZ HkfrZ;ksa ds fo:) ek0 mPp U;k;ky; bykgkckn esa tks&tks fjVsa gqbZ gSa mudh dqy la[;k& e; fjV la[;k] ;kph ds uke o fuLrkj.k frfFk lfgr iznku djsaA 3- ;fn mDr fjVsa fopkjk/khu gSa rks mDr fjVksa dks yfEcr j[kus ds nks"kh oknh@izfroknhx.k ds f[kykQ dksbZ dk;Zokgh dh gks rks mldh izekf.kr izfr;kaA 4- ek0 mPp U;k;ky; bykgkckn ds ldqZyj vkns'k la[;k&111@mU;kfolslbZ@ 2005 fnukad 05-08-2005 ds vuqikyu esa tuin U;k;ky; ,Vk }kjk p;fur laLFkk dk uke o irk o laLFkk ds ftEesnkj vfèkdkjh dk uke o irk iznku djus dh d`ik djsaA 5- ek0 mPp U;k;ky; fof/kd lsok lfefr ds i=kad&98@mU;kfolslb&eseks@ 2006 fnukad ebZ 25] 2006 ds vuqikyu esa tkjh jkT; fof/kd lsok izkf/kdj.k ds i=kad&1081@,l,y,l,&52@1006 fnukad 08 ebZ 2006 ds vuqikyu esa ^^fu%'kqYd fof/kd lgk;rk ¼yhxy ,M½ lfefr** dks ekeys /kkjk 89 lh0ih0lh0 ds vUrxZr lUnfHkZr djus lEcU/kh ek0 tuin U;k;k/kh'k ,oa v/;{k] ftyk fof/kd lsok izkf/kdj.k ,Vk ds vkns'k fnukafdr 12 tqykbZ 2006 dh izekf.kr izfr Jh d`".k flag vij ftyk tt ,Vk dh tkap vk[;k lfgrA** “1. The certified photocopies may kindly be provided, of all the letters through which the District Court, Etah had sought permission from the Hon’ble High Court with respect to whichever recruitments of officers and employees may have been held at the District Court, Etah from 1988 till today by way of examination or direct recruitment? 2. The certified photocopies may kindly be provided, of all the letters through which the District Court, Etah had sought permission from the Hon’ble High Court with respect to whichever recruitments of officers and employees may have been held at the District Court, Etah from 1988 till today by way of examination or direct recruitment? 2. The total numbers of writ petitions filed before the Hon’ble High Court against the recruitments held at the District Court, Etah in the year 1989, may kindly be provided, including petitioners’ names and the dates of their disposal. 3. If the said writ petitions are pending, the certified copies may kindly be provided if any action has been taken against the plaintiffs/defendants responsible for keeping the said writ petitions pending. 4. The name and address of the institution selected by the District Court, Etah in compliance of Hon’ble High Court’s Circular Order No. 111/Unnavisesai/2005 dated May 25, 2006 may kindly be provided alongwith the name and address of the responsible officer of such institution. 5. The certified copy of the order dated 12th July, 2006 passed by the Ld. District Judge and Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, Etah for referring the cases under Section 89 of CPC to “Free Legal Aid Committee” in compliance of letter No. 1081/SLSA-52/1006 dated 08th May, 2008 issued by the State Legal Services Authority in pursuance of letter No. 98/Unnavisesai-Memo/2006 dated 25th May, 2006 of the Hon’ble High Court Legal Services Committee.” (English Translation by Court) 4. By letter dated 9.4.2012, CPIO, HC informed Lokendra Dwivedi that information at Points-2 and 3 relate to judicial proceedings and can be obtained only as per procedure laid down in Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 1952”) through an Advocate and not otherwise, in view of Rules 25 and 26 of Allahabad High Court (Right to Information) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 2006”), which read as under: “Rule 25: Central Public Information Officer shall not be liable to provide any information, which can be obtained under provision of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 in case of High Court, and under General Rule (Civil/Criminal) in case of subordinate Courts. Such information may be obtained by adhering to the prescribed procedure and payment of fees prescribed in the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 or General Rule (Civil/Criminal) as the case might be.” “Rule 26: Central Public Information Officer will not entertain any application from any citizen for providing any information relating to matters which are pending adjudication before the High Court or Courts subordinate thereto. The information relating to judicial matters may be obtained as per the procedure prescribed in the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 and General Rule (Civil/Criminal) respectively.” 5. In respect to Items No. 1 and 4 District Judge, Etah was directed to provide information. 6. In respect to Item No. 5, Secretary, Legal Services Authority, High Court was directed to provide information. 7. Information on Points No. 1 and 4 was communicated to Sri Lokendra Dwivedi vide Central Public Information Officer/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Etah’s (hereinafter referred to as “CPIO/ADJ, Etah”) letter dated 9.5.2012. 8. Lokendra Dwivedi then preferred an appeal which was decided by order dated 3.1.2013 by Registrar General/First Appellate Authority, High Court Allahabad. Thereafter, Sri Lokendra Dwivedi filed an appeal before District Judge, Etah which was decided by order dated 12.3.2013 observing that since information on Points-4 and 5 relates to District Legal Services Authority, Etah, therefore, the said authority was directed to provide such information to Sri Lokendra Dwivedi. 9. Reply was given by Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Etah giving information in respect to points-4 and 5 vide letter dated 30.3.2013. This letter was also forwarded to Sri Lokendra Dwivdei by CPIO/ADJ, Etah alongwith its letter dated 5.4.2013. 10. Another appeal was filed by Sri Lokendra Dwivedi before District Judge, Etah in respect to information on points-2 and 3 which was partly allowed vide order dated 29.8.2013 and CPIO/ADJ, Etah was directed to provide information in respect to Points No. 2 and 3. In compliance thereof, by letter dated 26.9.2013 information in respect to Points-2 and 3 was also supplied. 11. It is thereafter that Sri Lokendra Dwivedi filed an appeal before State Information Commission, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as “SIC, Lucknow”). Without specifying as to what information has not been supplied to applicant, SIC, Lucknow directed CPIO/ADJ, Etah to appear in person alongwith record, vide order dated 3.4.2014 and thereafter imposed penalty of Rs. 11. It is thereafter that Sri Lokendra Dwivedi filed an appeal before State Information Commission, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as “SIC, Lucknow”). Without specifying as to what information has not been supplied to applicant, SIC, Lucknow directed CPIO/ADJ, Etah to appear in person alongwith record, vide order dated 3.4.2014 and thereafter imposed penalty of Rs. 25,000/- under Section 20(1) of Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 2005”). A further order was passed on 16.10.2014 for recovery of amount of penalty of Rs. 25,000/- in three installments and complaint of Lokendra Dwivedi has been disposed of. 12. In all the orders passed by SIC, Lucknow, we do not find that as to how it could be said that CPIO, ADJ, Etah has failed to furnish any information sought by applicant, Lokendra Kumar Dwivedi, and how provisions of Act, 2005 have been violated. It appears that SIC, Lucknow, instead of looking into substance of complaint, found it convenient to summon a senior Judicial Officer, i.e., Member of Higher Judicial Service, on mere asking, without any reason therefor. 13. The Officers working in Higher Judicial Services are senior Officers, part and parcel of important wing of Judiciary and their absence from Court without any valid reason, is bound to cause serious prejudice to pending and listed matters in their Courts. When an appeal or complainant is filed before SIC, Lucknow, first of all it had to examine as to what part of information sought by Applicant/Appellant has not been supplied and in what manner provisions of Act, 2005 have been violated. Unless a finding in this regard is recorded, in a mechanical manner, SIC, Lucknow is neither expected nor can summon a senior Judicial Officer without caring to the fact that his absence from Court will paralyze functioning of that Court and will ultimately cause serious prejudice to public interest. SIC, Lucknow though is a statutory body when exercise power under Act, 2005 but it should not forget that a Member of Higher Judicial Service and Presiding Officer of a Court is also a Constitutional authority and part and parcel of Judicial Wing of State, who is supposed to discharge his duties of imparting justice regularly and without obstruction in larger public interest. Such Officers cannot be treated to be subordinate to SIC, Lucknow so as to call on a fall of the hat or in a whimsical manner to appear in person before SIC, Lucknow. This approach on the part of SIC, Lucknow reflected in this case is clearly unauthorized, unwarranted and deserves to be condemned. We have also pointed out that no reason has been assigned, whatsoever, except that Judicial Officer was not present but there is nothing to show as to how information sought by Sri Lokendra Dwivedi was not supplied by petitioners rendering them liable for penalty under Act, 2005. In our view, approach of SIC, Lucknow in this case is clearly biased and influenced by consideration and reasons, other than bona fide. 14. Since impugned orders have caused serious harassment to a senior Officer of subordinate Court, in our view not only this writ petition deserves to be allowed, but petitioners are also entitled for exemplary cost. 15. The writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 3.4.2014 and 16.10.2014 are hereby set aside. Petitioners shall be entitled to cost quantified to Rs. Rs. 50,000/- which shall be paid by concerned State Information Commission to petitioner-1.