1. RULE. Learned AGP Mr. Yagnik waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondents.
2. By way of present petition, the petitioner seeks direction to the respondent No.2 to decide the First Appeal filed by the petitioner under Right to Information Act and also direct the respondent No.3 to furnish the relevant information sought by the petitioner vide his application dated 2.4.2012.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Meena for the petitioner submits that the First Appeal, which is filed by the petitioner and is now pending before the respondent No.2 and it has yet not been decided by the respondent No.2. The right of the petitioner is required to be protected. He also states that petitioner preferred First Appeal under Rule 6(1) of the Right to Information act on 8.5.2012 before the respondent No.2. He states that the petition is required to be allowed by directing the respondent No.2 to decide the said First Appeal.
4. Learned AGP Mr. Yagnik for respondents vehemently opposed the submissions of the learned advocate of the petitioner. He states that the petition is not required to be entertained.
5. Heard the parties and perused the prayers sought for in the petition along with papers. It appears that the respondent No.2 has not decided the First Appeal, even though the respondent No.1 directed him to decide the same. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent No.2 is directed to decide First Appeal preferred by the petitioner dated 8.5.2012, in accordance with law, within one month from today.
6. In view of the above, petition is disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(Z.K.SAIYED, J.) YNVYAS