[2026:RJ-JP:13725] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5551/2026 Smt Phoolwanti Verma Wife Of Shri Prahlad Kumar, Resident Of Village Dahami Khurd, Post Dahami Kalan, Via Bagru, Tehsil Sanganer, Jaipur (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rajasthan State Information Commission, Jhalana Link Road, OTS Crossing, JLN Marg, Jaipur- 302017 (Second Appellate Authority) 2. The Public Information Officer-Cum Deputy Commissioner, Zone-12, Jaipur Development Authority, Indira Circle, Jln Marg, Jaipur ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5573/2026 Smt Phoolwanti Verma Wife Of Shri Prahlad Kumar, Resident Of Village Dahami Khurd, Post Dahami Kalan, Via Bagru, Tehsil Sanganer, Jaipur (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rajasthan State Information Commission, Jhalana Link Road, OTS Crossing, JLN Marg, Jaipur- 302017 (Second Appellate Authority) 2. The Public Information Officer-Cum Deputy Commissioner, Zone-12, Jaipur Development Authority, Indira Circle, Jln Marg, Jaipur ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5769/2026 Smt. Phoolwanti Verma Wife Of Shri Prahlad Kumar, Resident Of Village Dahami Khurd, Post Dahami Kalan, Via Bagru, Tehsil Sanganer, Jaipur (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rajasthan State Information Commission, Jhalana Link [2026:RJ-JP:13725] (2 of 3) [CW-5551/2026] Road, Ots Crossing, Jln Marg, Jaipur - 302017 (Second Appellate Authority). 2. The Public Information Officer-Cum-Deputy Commissioner, Zone-12, Jaipur Development Authority, Indira Circle, Jln Marg, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shashi Kant Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dinesh Pathak HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 02/04/2026 1. In the instant writ petitions, learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the impugned order dated 08.12.2025 passed by the respondent No.1 by drawing the attention of this Court to its contradictions. It is vehemently submitted that the appellate authority has taken a contradictory stance; on one hand, it observes that the requested documents are being searched for, while on the other hand, it concludes that all documents have been duly supplied. It is further submitted that the impugned order is entirely a non-speaking order, which is bereft of any cogent reasoning. 2. On the directions of this Court, Mr. Dinesh Pathak, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 3. Upon perusal of the record, learned counsel for the respondent is not in a position to refute the contention that the impugned order is non-speaking in nature. 4. Having heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon a perusal of the material available on [2026:RJ-JP:13725] (3 of 3) [CW-5551/2026] record, this Court is of view that the impugned order dated 08.12.2025 suffers from the vice of being a non-speaking. 5. In light of the above, this Court deems it appropriate to quash and set aside the impugned order. The matter is remanded to the Rajasthan State Information Commission-Second Appellate Authority (Respondent No.1) with directions to re-examine the issue afresh and pass a reasoned and speaking order, strictly in accordance with law, after affording a due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 6. Accordingly, the instant writ petitions are disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed of. (SAMEER JAIN),J JKP/4-6