Dismissed¶23

Suresh Kumar Tripathi v. State Information Commission U.P. Thru. State Chief Information Commissioner Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC12 Mar 2026WRIC/2450/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RTI second appeal; State Information Commission U.P.; competence of Single Member Bench versus Division Bench; Right to Information Rules, 2015 contain no provision requiring Division Bench hearing; order dated 21.05.2025 upheld; writ petition dismissed; State Information Commission directed to decide application in accordance with law; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; WRIT - C No. 2450 of 2026; Judges Alok Mathur and Amitabh Kumar Rai.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the petitioner; the writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit, with a further direction that the State Information Commission shall proceed to consider and decide the petitioner's application in accordance with law. ¶23

Suresh Kumar Tripathi vs State Information Commission U.P. Thru. State Chief Information Commissioner Lko. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 21.05.2025 of the State Information Commission, passed by a Single Member Bench, is invalid because the Commission had earlier directed, by order dated 16.04.2025, that the matter be heard by a Division Bench; i.e., whether a matter pending before the State Information Commission can be heard and decided only by a Division Bench.

¶13

Court's answer

There is no provision under the Right to Information Rules, 2015 under which a matter is required to be heard by a Division Bench of the State Information Commission.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

No infirmity exists in the impugned order dated 21.05.2025; the Single Member Bench of the State Information Commission was competent to hear and decide the petitioner's application.

¶22

Key takeaways

The petitioner could not point out any provision indicating that a matter pending before the State Information Commission could be heard and decided only by a Division Bench.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WRIT - C No. 2450 of 2026 (Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench; Alok Mathur and Amitabh Kumar Rai, JJ.; March 12, 2026): Aggrieved by the response to his application under the Right to Information Act, the petitioner pursued a first appeal before the Superintending Engineer, 12th Circle/Zone, Irrigation Work, Telibagh, and a second appeal before the State Information Commission, U.P. By order dated 16.04.2025 the Commission directed that the matter be placed before a two-member Bench on 21.05.2025, but the matter was heard by a Single Member Bench, which recorded that a Division Bench was unavailable for administrative reasons. The writ petition challenged the order dated 21.05.2025 solely on the ground that it violated that earlier direction. The Court held that the Right to Information Rules, 2015 contain no provision requiring a matter before the State Information Commission to be heard by a Division Bench; the petitioner could point to no such statutory requirement; and the Single Member Bench was competent to hear and decide the application. Finding no infirmity in the impugned order, the Court dismissed the writ petition and directed the State Information Commission to consider and decide the petitioner's application in accordance with law.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 2450 of 2026

¶3

Suresh Kumar Tripathi

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Information Commission U.P. Thru. State Chief Information Commissioner Lko. And 2 Others

¶7

Counsel for Petitioner(s) .	: Gopal Ji Shukla, Anadi Chitranshi .....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Shikhar Anand, C.S.C.

¶8

Court No. - 5

¶9

HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.

¶10

Heard Shri Gopal Ji Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Shikhar Anand, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3.

¶11

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that an application under the Right to Information Act was preferred by the petitioner and being aggrieved by the information provided by the Information Officer and also on account of not receiving a proper response to the application, the petitioner filed a first appeal before the Superintending Engineer, 12th Circle/Zone, Irrigation Work, Telibagh. It appears that certain information was provided to the petitioner, however, the petitioner, not being satisfied with the said information, preferred a second appeal before the State Information Commission, Uttar Pradesh.

¶12

It has been submitted that, by means of the order dated 16.04.2025, the State Information Commission directed that the matter be placed before a twomember Bench on the next date i.e. 21.05.2025. However, the matter was heard by a Single Member Bench, wherein it was recorded that due to administrative reasons, a Division Bench was not available.

¶13

In the present writ petition, the grievance raised by the petitioner is with regard to the order dated 21.05.2025 stating that once an appropriate direction had been issued that the matter would be heard by a Division Bench of the State Information Commission, the matter could not subsequently have been heard by a Single Member Bench. Accordingly, the

¶14

WRIC No. 2450 of 2026

¶15

¶16

petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 21.05.2025.

¶17

Shri Shikhar Anand, learned counsel for respondent no.1 submits that as per the rules governing the proceedings before the State Information Commission, there is no provision requiring that a matter be heard by a Division Bench and it is at the convenience of the members whether they sit singly or as a Division Bench.

¶18

He has further submitted that it is not the case of the petitioner that the impugned order dated 21.05.2025 is contrary to any statutory provision and accordingly, has supported the order dated 21.05.2025.

¶19

This Court has considered the rival contentions of the parties. It is noticed that by means of the impugned order dated 21.05.2025, it has been recorded that all the information required by the petitioner has already been furnished to him and in case he is not satisfied with such information, he was directed to file his objections. However, no such objections have been placed on record in the present writ petition. Instead, the validity of the order dated 21.05.2025 has been challenged merely on the ground that the said order is violative of the previous order of the State Information Commission dated 16.04.2025, whereby the matter was to be placed before a Division Bench.

¶20

We have perused the Right to Information Rules, 2015 and find that there is no provision under which a matter is required to be heard by a Division Bench of the State Information Commission.

¶21

Accordingly, it is not the case of the petitioner that the impugned order dated 21.05.2025 is without jurisdiction or a Single Member Bench of the State Information Commission was not competent to hear and decide the said application of the petitioner.

¶22

Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 21.05.2025, whereby the Single Member Bench proceeded to consider the application of the petitioner. Even the petitioner could not point out any provision indicating that a matter pending before the State Information Commission could be heard and decided only by a Division Bench and not by a Single Member Bench.

¶23

With the aforesaid reasons, no interference is required in the impugned order. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed .

¶24

WRIC No. 2450 of 2026

¶25

¶26

The State Information Commission shall proceed to consider and decide the application of the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶27

March 12, 2026 Mahesh

¶28

(Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Alok Mathur,J.)

¶29

Digitally signed by :- MAHESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Suresh Kumar Tripathi v. State Information Commission U.P. Thru. State Chief Information Commissioner Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Kumar Tripathi v. State Information Commission U.P. Thru. State Chief Information Commissioner Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhai Lal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 9 Others

Rajesh Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Urban Planning and Development Lko. and 12 Others

Uttar Pradesh Audyogika Prshikshan Sansthan Karmachari Sangh Thru.President Hariom Singh and Ors. vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Vocational Edu. Skill Development Lko. and Another

Union of India, Thru the Secy. Ministry of Defence, New Delhi and 2 Others vs JC14925212 H Ex Naik Vinod Singh

Harikesh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 22 Others

Mili Vig vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Transport Lko. and 2 Others