Joint RTI applications are maintainable, and orders passed without notice or hearing violate natural justice.

A joint RTI application or appeal by more than one citizen remains maintainable because the Act confers the right on a citizen, and collective filing does not alter each applicant's individual status; the use of the singular is also supported by the General Clauses Act, so rejection merely for joinder was unsustainable. An order deciding the matter without notice of hearing to the affected party breached natural justice and could not stand, because no person may be condemned unheard. The Commission's rejection was therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a joint application or appeal filed by more than one citizen was maintainable under Section 3 of the Right to Information Act, 2005; (ii) Whether the impugned order was vitiated for want of opportunity of hearing.

Issue (i): Whether a joint application or appeal filed by more than one citizen was maintainable under Section 3 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Analysis: The right under the Act is available to a citizen, and the fact that several citizens join together in one application does not change their individual status or create a separate legal entity. Section 13 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 also supports the construction that singular includes plural unless the context otherwise requires. A joint request seeking common information is intended to avoid multiplicity and cannot be rejected merely because it is made by more than one citizen together.

Conclusion: The joint application and appeal were maintainable, and the contrary view was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned order was vitiated for want of opportunity of hearing.

Analysis: The appellant was entitled to notice of hearing before the appeal was decided. The absence of such notice offended the requirement that no person should be condemned unheard and caused prejudice to the petitioners. An order passed without affording hearing to the affected party cannot be sustained.

Conclusion: The impugned order was vitiated for breach of natural justice and was liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The rejection of the appeal by the Commission was set aside, and the writ petition was disposed of after recognizing the maintainability of the joint request and the necessity of fair hearing in proceedings under the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: A joint application by multiple citizens does not become non-maintainable under the Right to Information Act merely because it is filed collectively, and any adjudicatory order passed without notice and hearing to the affected party is unsustainable for breach of natural justice.

---