Chandan Kumar Chandan & Ors vs Dr. A.A. Khan & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 5408 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                  Date of decision: 11th September, 2012

+                        LPA No.608/2012

%     CHANDAN KUMAR CHANDAN & ORS.            ....Appellants
                 Through: Appellant No.1 in person.

                                  Versus

      DR. A.A. KHAN & ORS.                              ..... Respondents
                    Through:          Mr. Rajiv Bansal & Mr. Devvrat
                                      Singh Raghav, Advs. for R-6.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW


RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. This intra-court appeal impugns the judgment dated 20.03.2012 of the

learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.(C) No.8770/2011 preferred by the

three appellants. The said writ petition was preferred impugning the orders

dated 30.09.2011 and 29.11.2011 of the Central Information Commission

(CIC) constituted under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

2. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition observing that

the orders dated 30.09.2011 and 29.11.2011 were in fact in favour of the

appellants and the grievance of the appellants was in fact of non compliance

thereof and the information supplied being contradictory. The learned

Single Judge held that the said grievance could not be raised by way of writ

petition in the first instance and the remedy of the appellants was elsewhere.

3. Though this appeal is accompanied with applications for condonation

of 14 days delay in filing the appeal and 89 days delay in re-filing the

appeal, but we, without adverting thereto, have heard the appellant No.1,

appearing in person.

4. The appellants had vide application dated 10.02.2010 sought certain

information from the Information Officer of the University of Delhi.

Aggrieved by the information provided, the appellants filed a First Appeal

under the RTI Act alleging the information supplied to be misleading and

contradictory. The First Appellate Authority vide letters dated 16.04.2010

and 27.04.2010 disposed of the appeal stating that the information as

available had been provided. Aggrieved therefrom, the appellants had

approached the CIC.

5. CIC vide its order dated 06.01.2011 held, that it was evident from the

perusal of the documents of the case that the Information Officer had

provided the information available with him; however since the appellants

were far from satisfied with the information, they were given liberty to seek

inspection of the concerned files / records of the case and the Information

Officer was directed to co-operate in the inspection if any of the files by the

appellants.

6. The appellants however on 15.01.2011 approached the CIC averring

that the order dated 06.01.2011 was in their absence and without hearing

them. The CIC, it appears, set aside the order dated 06.01.2011 and re-

heard the matter on 24.03.2011. It was the submission of the appellants on

that date that the Information furnished by the Information Officer to them

was wrong. The same was sought to be demonstrated by showing

contradiction in the letter of the Deputy Proctor of the University on which

basis the Information Officer of the University of Delhi had supplied the

information and the information supplied by the Information Officer. This

plea of the appellants was contradicted by the University. The CIC vide

order of 24.03.2011 held that RTI is not the proper forum to agitate the

issues raised; however still, the Information Officer of the University of

Delhi was directed to forward the RTI application of the appellants to the

Information Officer of Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya Institute for the

Physically Handicapped (PDDUIPH) and the Information Officer of

PDDUIPH was directed to file an affidavit with the CIC as to the

information concerned.

7. The appellants preferred W.P.(C) No.2514/2011 against the order

dated 24.03.2011 of the CIC. The said writ petition was dismissed vide

order dated 21.04.2011.

8. It appears that the Information Officer of PDDUIPH did not file the

affidavit as directed vide the order dated 24.03.2011 of the CIC and on the

contrary vide communication dated 25.04.2011 sought further hearing in the

matter.

9. The appellants filed W.P.(C) No.5796/2011 in this Court averring that

neither had the affidavit, as directed been filed nor had the CIC held the

hearing sought by the Information Officer of PDDUIPH. The said writ

petition was disposed of vide order dated 11.08.2011 directing the CIC to

take up the matter and dispose of the same within two months.

10. It was thereafter that the matter was taken up by the CIC on

30.09.2011. However, it appears that the Information Officer of PDDUIPH

absented on medical grounds. CIC vide order dated 30.09.2011 directed the

Information Officer of PDDUIPH to appear on 29.11.2011.

11. Vide order dated 29.11.2011, CIC directed the Information Officer of

PDDUIPH to file the affidavit in terms of order dated 24.03.2011 within one

week.

12. Challenging the orders dated 30.09.2011 and 29.11.2011, the writ

petition from which this appeal arises was filed. As aforesaid, the order

dated 30.09.2011 is merely of adjournment on medical grounds and the

order dated 29.11.2011 is of extending the time for filing of the affidavit in

terms of earlier order dated 24.03.2011. We may highlight that the writ

petition against the order dated 24.03.2011 already stands dismissed.

13. We have set out the facts chronologically, since this appeal has been

filed in person and the appellant No.1 had argued in person. We however

fully agree with the learned Single Judge that there is no case for the

appellants to be aggrieved from the orders dated 30.09.2011 and 29.11.2011

and that the other grievances made by the appellants in the writ petition

cannot be made in the first instance before this Court.

14. Before parting with the matter, we may also mention that the

appellants had also preferred LPA No.560/2012 which also, we are vide

separate judgment, dismissing today. A perusal of the two files discloses

that the appellants, who were students of PDDUIPH have inundated the said

Institute with applications under the RTI Act. We, prima facie find the

appellants to be abusing the process of the said Act. However, we refrain

from giving any definite finding in this regard or from imposing any costs

on the appellants since we have not heard the parties on the said aspect and

further since the appellants are pursuing the matter on their own.

15. We do not find any merit in the appeal. The same is dismissed.

No costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SEPTEMBER 11, 2012 'gsr'