@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Hon''ble Chief Justice & T.S. Sivagnanam, J.@mdashW.P. No. 27665 of 2010 has been filed challenging the appointment of the 3rd respondent therein as the State Chief Information Commissioner as unconstitutional, illegal and violative of Section 15(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
2. W.P. No. 27666 of 2010 has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Quo Warranto calling upon the 3rd respondent therein to show cause under what authority he holds the position of the State Chief Information Commissioner, Tamil Nadu.
3. W.P. No. 12325 of 2011 has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to quash G.O.Ms.Nos.77 and 124 dated 17.04.2008 and 01.09.2010 respectively issued by the P&AR Department appointing respondents 3 to 6 therein as Commissioners in the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission as being arbitrary and violative of Section 15(3) of RTI Act, 2005.
4. At the very outset, we are of the view that insofar as G.O.Ms.No.77 dated 17.04.2008, which has been challenged in W.P. No. 12325 of 2011 is concerned, it is a highly belated one, inasmuch as appointments of State Information Commissioners were made as far back as 17.04.2008 and the same is challenged now in the year 2011. Moreover, one of the respondents in the said writ petition viz., the 5th respondent, who has been appointed as Information Commissioner by the said G.O.Ms.No.77 dated 17.04.2008 has already retired on 23.07.2011. Hence, W.P. No. 12325 of 2011 shall be confined only challenge to G.O.Ms.No.124 dated 01.09.2010 by which respondent '' 6 therein was appointed as the Chief Information Commissioner.
5. Since in all these three writ petitions the appointment of 3rd/6th respondent as Chief Information Commissioner has been challenged and common questions of law and facts are involved, they are disposed of by this common order.
6. In W.P. Nos. 27655 and 27666 of 2010 though separate prayers have been made, to quash the appointment of the 3rd respondent and for the issuance of a Writ of Quo Warranto against the 3rd respondent, yet the grounds raised are common and essentially the challenge is to the appointment of 3rd respondent as Chief Information Commissioner on the ground, inter alia, that the said appointment is at variance with the spirit of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short ''Act'') and it is violative of constitutional mandates and principles of natural justice. It is further stated that Section 15(3) of the Act simply states that the appointment of State Information Commissioner would be by a Committee, and it does not provide for any guidelines to be followed in the matter of appointment of State Information Commissioner. Therefore, the appointment of the 3rd respondent as the Chief Information Commissioner without framing guidelines by way of rules or governmental order is arbitrary and illegal. It is further stated that in the absence of such rules or guidelines the government must have followed the rules applicable to appointment of a comparable post. It is further stated that the Leader of the Opposition was not even provided with the names of probable candidates before convening the meeting of the Selection Committee, and this violates the mandate provided u/s 15(3) of the Act, which clearly states that the appointment of Chief Information Commissioner must be in consonance with every known concept of transparency and openness, and therefore, the entire process of selection was grossly illegal and void. The appointment of 3rd respondent as the Chief Information Commissioner without the consent of the Leader of the Opposition is clearly illegal. Since, the government does not notify the vacancies and call for the applications from the interested eligible candidates, the entire selection process violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and therefore, it deserves to be set aside. Finally, it is stated that the selection of the 3rd respondent is a pre-determined and pre-conceived one, against the avowed object of transparency in the selection of such important post, and therefore, requires to be quashed.
7. In W.P. No. 12325 of 2011 the grounds of challenge to the appointment of 6th respondent therein as the Chief Information Commissioner are that the recommendation of the Leader of the Opposition was not obtained for the said appointment, and the Leader of the Opposition was intentionally sidelined in the consultation process. The 6th respondent is a handpicked candidate of the political establishment in order to insulate the incriminating records of the then government. It is further contended that in the State Information Commission quasi judicial orders are being passed daily by the incompetent Commissioners without following the rules of natural justice.
8. In W.P. Nos. 27665 and 27666 of 2010 the respondents 2 and 3 namely, the State Information Commission and the Chief Information Commissioner filed a common counter affidavit stating inter alia that the appointment of the 3rd respondent as Chief Information Commissioner is valid, and it was made strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act, and it cannot be termed as arbitrary and unconstitutional. It is further stated that a valid selection Committee, consisting of the Chief Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and a Cabinet Minister was constituted, as required u/s 15(3) of the Act, to recommend the name for the State Chief Information Commissioner, and its meeting was also held on 23.08.2010. In the said meeting, 2/3rd majority, viz., the Chief Minister and the Cabinet Minister, decided to recommend the name of the 3rd respondent as the Chief Information Commissioner. Accordingly, after obtaining the consent of the Governor, a notification in G.O.Ms.No.124, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (AR.3) Department, dated 01.09.2010 was issued appointing the 3rd respondent as the Chief Information Commissioner. Therefore, it is a proper and valid appointment in consonance with Section 15(3) of the Act. It is further stated that the absence of a Committee Member viz., the Leader of Opposition would not vitiate the majority decision. It is further stated that the 3rd respondent was selected to the Indian Administrative Service in the year 1975. He worked in the Government of Tamil Nadu in various capacities including as head of various departments and as Secretary to the Government. During his lengthy service he performed many quasi-judicial functions. He was also the State Vigilance Commissioner between 2007 and 2008. Between 2008 and 2010 he was the Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu dealing with the entire gamut of governance and administration in the State of Tamil Nadu. He has consistently held high level positions in the State and Central Governments involving policy formulation, implementation and co-ordination with various agencies. Based on his wide knowledge and rich experience in areas such as law, administration and governance, he is fully entitled to be considered as a person of eminence in public life, and thus satisfies the qualification mentioned in Section 15(5) of the Act.
9. In the counter affidavit earlier filed by the 1st respondent '' State it was stated inter alia that the selection of the State Chief Information Commissioner was made strictly following the provisions of Section 15(3) of the Act and the selection is totally transparent. A Committee was constituted following the procedure contemplated u/s 15(3) of the Act. A communication dated 03.08.2010 was sent to the Leader of the Opposition to attend the Committee meeting on 23.08.2010 constituted u/s 15(3) of the Act. Subsequently, the Leader of the Opposition addressed a letter to the Government seeking certain particulars with regard to the list of applicants. She was replied that the information sought for will be provided at the time of meeting. Again she sent a letter on 22.08.2010 insisting upon her earlier demand. Again she was replied with the same answer. Ultimately, she did not attend the meeting. In the counter it was further stated that the posts of State Chief Information Commissioner and State Information Commissioners are not civil posts warranting requirement of calling for applications by way of issuing notification. The procedure followed in the recruitment of Government Servants cannot be followed here. However, all the applications received were placed before the Committee. The Committee has the power to recommend the name of persons either from among the applicants or from others. The power of recommendation vests only with the Selection Committee. In the present appointment, the 3rd respondent was recommended by the Selection Committee and as per the recommendation, the appointment was made by the Governor. In spite of intimation regarding the meeting the Leader of the Opposition did not attend the meeting which was held on 23.08.2010. Therefore, as per the precedent which was followed on 11.04.2008, when the Leader of the Opposition did not attend the meeting, the majority view of the Committee was considered and the 3rd respondent''s name was recommended to the Governor for appointment as State Chief Information Commissioner.
10. However, in the second counter affidavit filed by the present Government in W.P. No. 12325 of 2011, a different stand has been taken that the appointment of the Chief Information Commissioner has not been made in accordance with the procedure laid down u/s 15(3) of the Act. It is stated that the Chief Minister and the Minister for Finance nominated by the then Chief Minister attended the meeting on 23.08.2010 and took a decision for the appointment of the 6th respondent as the State Chief Information Commissioner. In both the cases there was no consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. It is further stated that the Leader of the Opposition addressed a letter to the government on 21.08.2010 that she came to know that the State Information Commission is not functioning on the expected line and the procedure adopted for the appointment of Chief Information Commissioner was not transparent. Further, it was also stated in the said letter that out of the 11 applications received 7 were rejected without assigning proper reason. In the said letter she also requested the government to furnish copies of the applications received in this regard. But, she had been replied that the copies of the applications will be furnished only at the time of the meeting. Again, the Leader of the Opposition addressed a letter to the Government on 22.08.2010 stating that time is needed to scrutinize the details of the applicants, and since, copies of the applications are available with the other two members of the Committee, it is improper to deny the same to her. For which, the Government sent a reply dated 23.08.2010 declining to give the details before the meeting stating that during 2005 the copies were not circulated before the meeting. Again, the Leader of the Opposition sent a reply stating that at that time no body asked for it, and hence, it would not be justifiable to reject her request this time.
11. We have heard Mr. Manikandan Vathan Chettiar, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.12325 of 2011 and Mr. N.L. Raja, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. Nos.2766 and 27666 of 2010. We have also heard the learned Advocate General, the learned senior counsel and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.
12. The Right to Information Act, 2005 is a social welfare legislation and is a special law, enacted to ensure smoother and greater access to public information by establishment of a machinery and to ensure maximum disclosure of the information. The Act provides that all citizens of India shall have the right to information. The Act confers a great responsibility on the shoulders of those who seek information and also those who administer the provisions of the Act.
13. Section 2(h) of the Act defines public authority, which means any authority or body or institution of self-Government establishment or constituted by or under the Constitution or by any other law made by the Parliament or the Legislatures. u/s 4 of the Act, every public authority shall
a) maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and the form which facilitates the right to information under this Act and ensure that all records that are appropriate to be computerized are, within a reasonable time and subject to availability of resources, computerized and connected through a network all over the country on different systems so that access to such records is facilitated;
(b) publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,-
(i) the particulars of its organization, functions and duties;
(ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees;
(iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability;
(iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions;
(v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions;
(vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control;
(vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof;
(viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public;
(ix) a directory of its officers and employees;
(x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations;
(xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made;
(xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes;
(xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorizations granted by it;
(xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form;
(xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use;
(xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers;
(xvii) such other information as may be prescribed; and thereafter update these publications every year.
14. The Chief Information Commissioner and the Information Commissioners have been defined u/s 2(d) of the Act. The procedure for appointment has been provided u/s 15 of the said Act. For better appreciation, Section 15 is reproduced herein below :
Section 15 - Constitution of State Information Commission.
(1) Every State Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute a body to be known as the.......................... (name of the State) information Commission to exercise the powers conferred on, and to perform the functions assigned to, it under this Act.
(2) The State information Commission shall consist of-
(a) the State Chief information Commissioner, and
(b) such number of State information Commissioners, not exceeding ten, as may be deemed necessary.
(3) The State Chief Information Commissioner and the State Information Commissioners shall be appointed by the Governor on the recommendation of a Committee consisting of-
(i) the Chief Minister, who shall be the Chairperson of the Committee;
(ii) the Leader of Opposition in the Legislative Assembly; and
(iii) a Cabinet Minister to be nominated by the Chief Minister. Explanation.--For the purposes of removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where the Leader of Opposition in the Legislative Assembly has not been recognized as such, the Leader of the single largest group in opposition of the Government in the Legislative Assembly shall be deemed to be the Leader of Opposition.
(4) The general superintendence, direction and management of the affairs of the State Information Commission shall vest in the State Chief Information Commissioner who shall be assisted by the State Information Commissioners and may exercise all such powers and do all such acts and things which may be exercised or done by the State Information Commission autonomously without being subjected to directions by any other authority under this Act.
(5) The State Chief Information Commissioner and the State Information Commissioners shall be persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience in law, science and technology, social service, management, journalism, mass media or administration and governance.
(6) The State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner shall not be a Member of Parliament or Member of the Legislature of any State or Union territory, as the case may be, or hold any other office of profit or connected with any political party or carrying on any business or pursuing any profession.
(7) The headquarters of the State Information Commission shall be at such place in the State as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify and the State Information Commission may, with the previous approval of the State Government, establish offices at other places in the State.
15. From a bare perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is manifest that the State Chief Information Commissioner and the State Information Commissioners shall be appointed by the Governor on the recommendation of a Committee consisting of the Chief Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and a Cabinet Minister to be nominated by the Chief Minister. The Committee so constituted under the Act is a statutory body.
16. One of the grounds of challenge is that Section 15 of the Act does not provide any guideline for appointment and therefore, the appointment made by the Committee is vitiated in law. We do not find force in the submission made by the learned counsel. From a bare reading of the relevant provisions of the Act, it is manifest that the source of power for the appointment of the Chief Information Commissioner and the State Information Commissioners is Section 15 of the Act and therefore, the exercise of power cannot be diluted by issuing any guidelines. It is worth to mention here that similar provision contained in Section 4 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 in the matter of appointment of Chief Vigilance Commissioner and the Vigilance Commissioner. According to that Section, the Chief Vigilance Commissioner and Vigilance Commissioner shall be appointed on the recommendation of Committee consisting of the Prime Minister (as Chairman), the Minister of Home Affairs and the Leader of Opposition in the House of the People (as Members).
17. The aforesaid provision of the Act and the manner of appointment has been discussed at length in the case of
43. Appointment to the post of the Central Vigilance Commissioner must satisfy not only the eligibility criteria of the candidate but also the decision making process of the recommendation [see para 88 of N. Kannadasan vs. Ajoy Khose, (2009) 7 SCC 1]. The decision to recommend has got to be an informed decision keeping in mind the fact that CVC as an institution has to perform an important function of vigilance administration. If a statutory body like HPC, for any reason whatsoever, fails to look into the relevant material having nexus to the object and purpose of the 2003 Act or takes into account irrelevant circumstances then its decision would stand vitiated on the ground of official arbitrariness see State of Andhra Pradesh v. Nalla Raja Reddy, (1967) 3 SCR 28. Under the proviso to Section 4(1), the HPC had to take into consideration what is good for the institution and not what is good for the candidate [see para 93 of N. Kannadasan (supra)]. When institutional integrity is in question, the touchstone should be "public interest" which has got to be taken into consideration by the HPC and in such cases the HPC may not insist upon proof [see para 103 of N. Kannadasan (supra)].
44. We should not be understood to mean that the personal integrity is not relevant. It certainly has a co-relationship with institutional integrity. The point to be noted is that in the present case the entire emphasis has been placed by the CVC, the DoPT and the HPC only on the bio-data of the empanelled candidates. None of these authorities have looked at the matter from the larger perspective of institutional integrity including institutional competence and functioning of CVC. Moreover, we are surprised to find that between 2000 and 2004 the nothings of DoPT dated 26th June, 2000, 18th January, 2001, 20th June, 2003, 24th February, 2004, 18th October, 2004 and 2nd November, 2004 have all observed that penalty proceedings may be initiated against Shri P.J. Thomas. Whether State should initiate such proceedings or the Centre should initiate such proceedings was not relevant. What is relevant is that such nothings were not considered in juxtaposition with the clearance of CVC granted on 6th October, 2008. Even in the Brief submitted to the HPC by DoPT, there is no reference to the said nothings between the years 2000 and 2004. Even in the C.V. of Shri P.J. Thomas, there is no reference to the earlier nothings of DoPT recommending initiation of penalty proceedings against Shri P.J. Thomas. Therefore, even on personal integrity, the HPC has not considered the relevant material. The learned Attorney General, in his usual fairness, stated at the Bar that only the Curriculum Vitae of each of the empanelled candidates stood annexed to the agenda for the meeting of the HPC. The fact remains that the HPC, for whatsoever reason, has failed to consider the relevant material keeping in mind the purpose and policy of the 2003 Act.
18. One of the arguments advanced before the Supreme Court was that the recommendation of the High Power Committee has to be unanimous and if the unanimity is ruled out, then the very purpose of inducting the Leader of Opposition in the process of selection will stand defeated because if the recommendation of the Committee were to be arrived at by majority, it would always exclude the Leader of Opposition, since the Prime Minister and the Home Minister will always be ad idem. Refuting the said submission, their lordships held :
81. We find no merit in these submissions. To accept the contentions advanced on behalf of the Petitioners would mean conferment of a "veto right" on one of the members of the HPC. To confer such a power on one of the members would amount to judicial legislation. Under the proviso to Section 4(1) Parliament has put its faith in the High Powered Committee consisting of the Prime Minister, the minister for Home Affairs and the Leader of the Opposition in the House of the People. It is presumed that such High Powered Committee entrusted with wide discretion to make a choice will exercise its powers in accordance with the 2003 Act, objectively and in a fair and reasonable manner. It is well settled that mere conferment of wide discretionary powers per se will not violate the doctrine of reasonableness or equality. The 2003 Act is enacted with the intention that such High Powered Committee will act in a bipartisan manner and shall perform its statutory duties keeping in view the larger national interest. Each of the Members is presumed by the legislature to act in public interest. On the other hand, if veto power is given to one of the three Members, the working of the Act would become unworkable.
19. On the basis of the law laid down by the Supreme Court as quoted hereinbefore, it is clear that though the Committee can take a unanimous decision, but in the absence of unanimity, it can be decided by majority. As noticed above, Section 15(3) of the Act itself provides the procedure of appointment on the basis of the recommendation made by the Committee consisting of three members, i.e., Chief Minister, Cabinet Minister and the Leader of Opposition. Hence, the question of consultation does not arise.
20. We have perused the records with nothings maintained by the State Government. The translated copy of the proceedings of the Committee dated 23.8.2010 supplied by the respondent, which is part of the file, reads as under:
Minutes of the meeting of the Committee constituted u/s 15(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 held on 23.8.2010 at 5.00 p.m. in the Chamber of the Hon''ble Chief Minister.
The Committee stipulated u/s 15(3) of the Right to Information Act for selection of State Chief Information Commissioner met at 5.00 p.m. today (23.8.2010). The Chairman of the Committee Hon''ble Chief Minister and the Hon''ble Finance Minister Thiru. K. Anbazhagan participated in the meeting. Hon''ble Leader of the Opposition, by letters dated 21.8.2010 and 22.8.2010, had sought the particulars of the eligible persons to be considered by the said Committee today. Reply was sent that the particulars regarding the persons who have applied for the Chief Information Commissioner and the applications would be placed before the Committee meeting. However, Hon''ble Leader of the Opposition Selvi. J. Jayalalitha did not participate in the meeting.
2. The Bio-data of the persons who have applied for the Chief Information Commissioner were examined. Of this, Selvi/Tmt. P. Prabha, D. Bharathi and P.S. Gowri are engaged in Social Work. However, based on the Bio-data submitted by them, it cannot be considered that they are persons of eminence in Public Life with Wide Knowledge and Experience (Pattarivu) as referred in the Act.
3. On examining the Bio-data of Tvl. S. Baskar and T. Ramakrishnan, it is seen that they belong to Information Technology Sector. Based on the Bio-data submitted by them, it cannot be considered that they are persons of eminence in Public Life with Wide Knowledge and Experience (Pattarivu) as referred in the Act.
4. Dr. Thiru. N. Satchidhanandam is a Retired Medical Officer. He has not submitted details of full experience in Public Administration. Based on the Bio-data submitted by him, it cannot be considered that he is a person of eminence in Public Life with Wide Knowledge and Experience (Pattarivu) as referred in the Act.
5. Thiru. Krishnaraj Rao is an Activist in Right to Information. Though he has stated that he has 24 years of experience as a Journalist, he has no given details about that. Further, till 1988, he was a Freelance Journalist. Therefore, it cannot be considered that he is a person of eminence in Public Life with Wide Knowledge and Experience (Pattarivu) as referred in the Act.
6. Tmt. Thangam Sankaranarayanan has served in Indian Administrative Service for 36 years and retired in April, 2010 in the cadre of Chief Secretary. It can be considered she has eminence in Public Administration and Governance as stipulated in the Act.
7. Thiru. K.S. Sripathy has served in Indian Administrative Service for 35 years. Apart from having held several positions, he is working as Chief Secretary. It can be considered that he has eminence in Public Administration and Governance as stipulated in the Act.
8. Therefore, out of 9 persons who have applied for the post of the State Chief Information Commissioner, since only two have fully satisfied the requirements of the Act, out of these two applications, taking into consideration that Thiru. K.S. Sripathy, I.A.S., has been working as Chief Secretary efficiently for about 2 years
This Committee unanimously recommends that Thiru. K.S. Sripathy may be appointed as State Chief Information Commissioner.
(M. Karunanidhi)
(Chief Minister/Chairman)
(K. Anbazhagan)
(Finance Minister/Member)
21. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the decision taken by the Committee recommending the name of the third respondent for the post of Chief Information Commissioner is not an ''informed decision'' inasmuch the information sought for by the Leader of Opposition was not supplied to her.
22. We do not find force in the submission made by the learned counsel. From the nothings quoted hereinbefore, it is evidently clear that the Leader of Opposition was duly informed about the Meeting of the Committee held on 23.8.2010, which was duly acknowledged on her behalf, and she was also sent a reply to her request seeking certain particulars, that all papers shall be furnished at the Meeting. Inspite of that, the Leader of Opposition had chosen not to attend the Meeting, without assigning any reasons. Hence, it cannot be held that the decision taken by the Committee was arbitrary or suffers from bias.
23. As noticed above, in the first counter affidavit filed by the first respondent '' State it was stated that the selection to the post of the State Chief Information Commissioner was made strictly following the provisions of Section 15(3) of the Act and the selection was fully transparent. A Committee was constituted following the procedure contemplated under the aforesaid provision and the Leader of the Opposition was requested to attend the meeting. But the Leader of the Opposition did not attend the meeting. Consequently, unanimous decision was taken for the appointment of respondent '' 3 as Chief Information Commissioner. Pending writ petitions there was change in government and a new government came to power. Then it filed a second counter affidavit taking a different stand that the appointment of the Chief Information Commissioner was not made in accordance with the procedure laid down u/s 15(3) of the Act. It is stated that there was no consultation with the Leader of the Opposition, and hence, the appointment is wholly arbitrary.
24. It is well settled that the State or its instrumentalities cannot take a conflicting stand in a case merely because of the change of government. In the case of
16. The decisions taken at the governmental level should not be so easily nullified by a change of Government and by some other political party assuming power, particularly when such a decision affects some other State and the interest of the nation as a whole. In cannot be disputed that so far as the policy is concerned, a political party assuming power is entitled to engraft the political philosophy behind the party, since that must be held to be the will of the people. But in the matter of governance of a State or in the matter of execution of a decision taken by a previous Government, on the basis of a consensus arrived at, which does not involve any political philosophy, the succeeding Government must be held duty-bound to continue and carry on the unfinished job rather than putting a stop to the same.
25. It is, therefore, clear that unless it is found that the act done by the Government earlier in power is either contrary to the constitutional provisions or unreasonable or against public interest, the State should not change its stand merely because another political party has come into power. Political agenda of an individual or a political party should not be subversive of the rule of law.
26. It has, therefore, to be held that the process of appointment adopted by the Committee was transparent and in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 15(3) of the Act. Hence, we uphold G.O. Ms. No.124 dated 1.9.2010 appointing the third respondent (sixth respondent in W.P. No.12325 of 2011) as Chief Information Commissioner and reject the prayer for issuance of a Writ of Quo Warranto against the 3rd respondent.
27. For the aforesaid reasons, these writ petitions, having no merit, are dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
