The Punjab and Haryana High Court has stayed the operation of an order passed by the Punjab State Information Commission holding retired Additional District and Sessions Judge Bhavnesh Chand Gupta to fall within the definition of “public authority” under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005.Justice Kirti Singh issued notice to the Commission and other respondents for November 2 and ordered that the operation of the impugned order dated August 3 shall remain stayed till further orders.The matter was placed before the Bench after Gupta approached the High Court seeking quashing of the order passed by the Commission in an appeal.The Bench was told that the commission, vide the impugned order, held Gupta to fall within the definition of “public authority” under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. He was further directed to personally furnish information to the RTI applicant within 30 days. Directions were also sought to quash the order dated April 3, 2025, by which the petitioner was suo motu impleaded as a “necessary party being the custodian of the record”.Appearing before Justice Kirti Singh’s Bench, counsel Esh Gupta contended that the petitioner––a retired judicial officer––was from time to time empaneled by the Punjab government as an inquiry officer for conducting departmental inquiries under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970.The matter originated after the respondent-applicant filed a RTI plea dated July 13, 2023, seeking information “regarding the inquiries pending before or decided by the petitioner during different periods”.Esh submitted that the petitioner had not been the recipient of the RTI application and was not a party to the proceedings at the earlier stages. “It was only vide order dated April 3, 2025, that respondent-Commission suo motu impleaded the petitioner as a necessary party,” it was added.