Antony Dominic, J. 1. This writ appeal is filed by the petitioner in W.P (C).32973/08, aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single Judge disposing of the writ petition filed by them.
2. Facts of the case are that M/s.P.R.S. Pillai Memorial Balavikas Trust is a charitable trust functioning in Trivandrum. The second respondent, Chairman of yet another trust, made a request under the Right to Information Act to the appellant for certain informations, by submitting Ext.P1 application. That was declined by Ext.P2 reply of the appellant. Further requests made, evidenced by Exts.P3 and p4, were also turned down.
3. Thereupon, the second respondent moved the first respondent by filing Ext.P5, to which, Exts.P6 and P8 objections were filed. Finally Ext.P9 order was passed by the first respondent. In that order, without examining the merits of the rival contentions raised by the parties, the first respondent found that complete information requested by the second respondent was not furnished by the appellant and accordingly, appellant was directed to provide detailed information to the second respondent free of cost and report compliance to the first respondent.
4. It was challenging Ext.P9 order, the writ petition was filed. In the writ petition, the appellant placed reliance on section 8(1)(e) of the Act and contended that the information sought for was not liable to be furnished. However, learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition directing the appellant to furnish information in relation to question Nos.2 to 4 and directing the first respondent to reconsider the issue as regards question No.1. It is this judgment which is under challenge before us.
5. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant, standing counsel appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.
6. In Ext.P1 and also in Ext.P5, the information sought for by the second respondent is in respect of 4 items. That request for disclosure of information was initially refused by the appellant and they contested the claim before the first respondent by filing Exts.P6 and P8 objections. However, without examining the merits of the rival contentions and apparently on account of a stray sentence in the objection filed by the appellants that they would abide by the decision of the first respondent, the first respondent directed disclosure of the entire information sought for.
7. In our view, such a course of action adopted by the first respondent is erroneous and the first respondent ought to have considered the rival contentions raised by the parties and passed a speaking order dealing with those contentions. This having not been done, we are inclined to set aside Ext.P9 order and direct that the first respondent shall re-consider the entire matter and pass fresh orders in accordance with law.
In the aforesaid circumstances, the judgment of the learned single Judge is set aside and the appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge.
kkb.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, Judge.
/True copy/ PS to Judge