JUDGMENT : MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, J. 1. On the oral request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, defects are waived. 2. This writ petition has been filed assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 18.10.2019 passed by the Rajasthan State Information Commission whereby, the second appeal filed by the petitioner under Right to Information Act, 2005 (for brevity “the Act of 2005”) has been dismissed. 3. The relevant facts in brief are that the petitioner applied for a copy of the brief prepared by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (for brevity “APP”) of Munsif Magistrate Court Bandikui in FIR No. 125/2018 registered at Police Station Baswa, District Dausa on the premise that in the aforesaid FIR lodged by complainant-Hanuman Saini against the petitioner’s brother Shri Nawal Kishore Saini, as per the brief prepared by the learned APP, the complainant himself was an accused. Information was declined by the respondents taking shelter of Clause 8(1)(h) of the Act of 2005. The first appeal as also the second appeal preferred by the petitioner against rejection of his prayer, have been dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after filing of the charge-sheet against his brother, the impediment provided under Section 8(1)(h) of the Act of 2005 was no more attracted. He, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be allowed, the order impugned be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to provide him a copy of the brief prepared by the learned APP. 5. Heard. Considered. 6. The information sought by the petitioner under the Act of 2005 has been denied merely referring to Section 8 (1)(h) without assigning any reason as to how the information, if supplied, would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. Moreso, when, as per the application filed by the petitioner, charge-sheet was already filed. Therefore, rejection of the application by the respondents cannot be sustained in the eye of law. However, this Court is not inclined to direct the respondents to furnish the petitioner information sought by him inasmuch as it is hit by Section 11 of the Act of 2005. A request is made to supply a copy of the brief prepared by the learned APP in the FIR No. 125/2018 lodged by complainant-Hanuman Saini against Shri Naval Kishore Saini, brother of the petitioner. A request is made to supply a copy of the brief prepared by the learned APP in the FIR No. 125/2018 lodged by complainant-Hanuman Saini against Shri Naval Kishore Saini, brother of the petitioner. Indisputably, it is a third party information and without fulfillment of the condition precedent as provided under Section 11 which require furnishing a notice upon the third party, the information could not have been supplied to the petitioner. Admittedly, brother of the petitioner, i.e. the third party, was in custody at the time the application was filed and it was not feasible for the respondents to have served petitioner’s brother a notice under Section 11. In view thereof, the petitioner could not have been supplied the information sought under the application albeit for the reason other than that assigned by the respondents vide order impugned. Since, the application seeking information was filed by the petitioner way back on 20.10.2018 and much water has flown since then, this Court instead of remanding the matter back to the respondents to decide it afresh, deems it just and proper to grant the petitioner a liberty to file an application afresh under the Act of 2005 if he still so desires. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed.