Delhi High Court
Priyanka Sarpal & Others vs Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyay Institute ... on 24 July, 2009
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
45.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 10387/2009
PRIYANKA SARPAL & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. Navin Kumar Jha, Advocate.
versus
PT DEEN DAYAL UPADHAYAY INSTITUTE FOR THE PHYSICALLY
HANDCAPPED & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
% 24.07.2009
1. The petitioners herein are interns associated and working in Pandit
Deen Dayal Upadhayaya Institute for Physically Handicapped.
2. The petitioners herein had moved as many as eight applications
under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Most of the information was
directed against Mr. G. Pandian, a lecturer and complaints made against
him.
3. No satisfied with the information furnished, the petitioners filed
eight separate appeals before the Central Information Commission. Seven
appeals were disposed of vide order dated 2nd June, 2008 after recording
that there was no denial of information and that the PIO has expressed
her willingness to allow inspection of documents pertaining to action taken
on their complaints. The 8th appeal was disposed of vide order dated 10th
W.P. (C) No. 10387/2009 Page 1
September, 2008 with the direction to the PIO to identify and provide
specified documents within ten days from the date of the said decision.
The petitioners thereafter moved applications before the Central
Information Commission dated 25th June, 2008, 23rd September, 2008, 15th
October, 2008 and 12th November, 2008 alleging non-compliance.
Thereupon, Central Information Commission issued notice to the
respondent institute and hearing was held on 18th December, 2008. After
hearing both the parties, the Commissioner passed order dated 19 th
December, 2008 and observed that the documents had been shared and
the decision has been complied and all the appellants have passed with
over 60% marks. The annexures to this order states that as many as 61
pages were supplied.
4. The petitioners thereafter filed another application before the
Central Information Commission with the following request:-
"We, therefore in the aforesaid facts and circumstances
request you to direct the PIO to provide us (the
applicants) following information;
A. Whether there is any post of student coordinator in
BPO division and if so the name of the person in charge
of the same with respect to all four year of the BPO
course and date of taking over the respective charges.
B. Name of the person in charge of the internal
examination and assessment of the BPO division.
C. The reason behind suspension and the photo copy of
the complaint filed against Mr. G. Pandian and other
relevant material on the basis of which action was taken
W.P. (C) No. 10387/2009 Page 2
against him and he was asked to transfer the charge on
17.07.2007.
D. Photo copy of the all complaints and applications of
the students available before the enquiry committee
comprising Smt. Rajni Kalra (Chairperson), Sh. A.K.
Sukla (Member) and Smt. Harbhajan Kaur (Member
Secretary).
E. Photo copy of the rules and regulation of the BPO
division, if any and also the photo copy of the code of
conduct applicable in the internal examination in BPO
division.
F. Information in terms of the para 3.11 of this
application and the photo copy of the answer sheets
and the marks obtained by applicant no. 3 in the all
papers.
G. Is the any programme initiated by the department is
official or unofficial.
The Hon'ble Commission may also be
pleased to impose a penalty against PIO
under section 20(1) of the Right to
Information Act 2005 and also recommend
for the disciplinary action under the service
rules under section 20(2) of the Right to
Information Act 2005 for giving incomplete,
misleading and false information.
The Hon'ble Commission may also be
pleased to pass further order as it deem fit
and proper in the light of fact and
circumstances of this application."
5. The application was considered by the Central Information
Commission and the petitioners were advised to adopt the procedure
under the Right to Information Act, 2005, i.e., file an application before
W.P. (C) No. 10387/2009 Page 3
the concerned PIO for supply of information. The impugned order are
justified and no ground for interference is made. The petitioners must first
approach the CPIO by filing an application for supply of information and in
case of failure, approach the Central Information Commission in
accordance with law.
The writ petition is disposed of.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
JULY 24, 2009
VKR
W.P. (C) No. 10387/2009 Page 4
