Delhi High Court
Jamia Hamdard University vs Prof M Sridhar Arcaryulu ... on 17 March, 2017
$~34
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 17.03.2017
+ W.P.(C) 4867/2016 & CM No. 20306/2016
JAMIA HAMDARD UNIVERSITY ..... Petitioner
versus
PROF M SRIDHAR ARCARYULU (MADABHUSHI SRIDAR)
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER AND ANR
..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ekta Sikri with Mr. Vikalp Mudgal, Advocates
For the Respondent: None for Respondent no. 3
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
17.03.2017
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. None appears for respondent no. 3 despite service.
2. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 04.05.2016
whereby the CIC has held that there appears to be a genuine grievance
of non-payment of bills after execution of the contracted work.
Further the CIC has issued a show cause notice to the CPIO to show
cause as to why maximum penalty be not imposed for not providing
complete information and has required the Registrar and the Vice-
Chancellor to address the grievances raised by Mr. Arshad Malik
(Respondent No. 3) and report to the Commission about the action
taken. The order records that the non-compliance of the order would
lead to penalty proceedings under Section 20 of the Right to
Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').
3. The application seeking information was filed by one Mr. Khan
Zulfiqar Khan & Associates on 16.03.2015. On 13.04.2015 the
requisite information was provided to the applicant therein. It is
contended that despite the supply of the information, the applicant -
Mr. Khan Zulfiqar Khan made an application to the CIC about the
alleged non supply of information.
4. On 04.05.2016, the date when the impugned order was passed,
the CIC has noticed that the complainant was represented by Mr.
Arshad Malik, Adv. The order records that Mr. Arshad Malik was
representing the complainant. Mr. Arshad Malik was stated to be a
contractor and he wanted to know about the payment details. It is
recorded in the order that the University was not paying him and he
was demanding payment for the last four years.
5. The relevant paras of the impugned order dated 04.05.2016 are
as follows:
"3. It is complained that the CPIO did not respond to
RTI application. Mr. Samad Rafjq Khan, PIO of Jamia
Hamdard University has furnished the information on
13.04.2015. He has also presented a despatch proof. The
complainant requested for the detailed information. Mr.
Arshad Malik who represented the complainant stated
that he was the contractor and he wanted to know the
payment details. He claimed that the university was not
paying him, and that he was demanding payment for the
last four years, that was cause to come in RTI. The CPIO
stated that in spite of several demands, the contractor did
not submit the work order and hence payment could not
be made. Mr. Arshad Malik stated that he executed work
of HIMSAR building on oral instructions spending
Rupees Thirty Lakh. The CPIO claimed that his
grievance is being considered by duly constituted
committee.
4. The Commission directs respondent authority to
provide the copy of the report along with action taken
on his grievance within one month. There appears a
genuine grievance of non-payment of bills after the
execution of the contracted work.
5. The Commission directs the past CPIO Mr.
Samad Rafiq Khan and Mr. M.G. Vinod Kumar present
CPIO to show cause why maximum penalty should not
be imposed against them for not providing complete
information, before 27.05.2016. The Commission
requires the Registrar of the university Dr. Firdose
Ahmad Wani and Vice Chancellor, Dr. G. N. Qazi to
address the grievance raised by Mr. Arshad Malik in
this case and report to the Commission about action
taken by 27.05.2016. Non-compliance of this order will
lead to penalty proceeding under Section 20 of RTI
Act."
(underlining supplied)
6. The impugned order shows that the Commission heard Mr.
Arshad Malik/Respondent No. 3 (the representative of information
seeker) with regard to his claim about non-payment of his dues. The
Commission thereafter directed that a copy of the report along with
action taken on the grievance of Mr. Arshad Malik be produced before
the Commission. The Commission has recorded that there appears to
be a genuine grievance of non-payment of bills after the execution of
the contracted work.
7. It is in these circumstances, as noticed above, that the
Commission has directed the CPIOs to show cause as to why the
maximum penalty be not imposed against them for not providing
complete information and has directed the Registrar and the Vice-
Chancellor of the petitioner - University to redress the grievance
raised by Mr. Arshad Malik and report compliance to the
Commission.
8. It is settled proposition of law that the Act deals with
information. The CIC has to act within the four corners of the Act.
The responsibility of the CIC under the Act is to ensure that the
information that is sought is provided expeditiously in terms of the
provisions of the Act. The CIC has not been conferred any right
beyond the powers conferred under the Act. In the instant case, the
CIC seems to have gone into the issue of alleged non-payment of the
bill of Mr. Arshad Malik, the representative of the information seeker.
The observation of the CIC that this appears to be a grievance of non-
payment of the bills after execution of he contracted work and the
direction given to the Registrar and the Vice-Chancellor to address the
grievances raised by Mr. Arshad Malik who was appearing as
representative is clearly have nothing to do with the application by
Mr. Khan Zulfiqar Khan seeking information.
9. The directions issued are clearly beyond the powers conferred
upon the CIC under the Act and have got nothing to do with the
information sought by Mr. Khan Zulfiqar Khan (applicant) under the
Act.
10. Further, the contention of the petitioner is that the information
was duly provided to the applicant on 13.04.2015 in response to the
application received on 16.03.2015 which was within a period of one
month of the receipt of the application.
11. In view of the above, I am of the view that the directions given
in the impugned order can clearly not be sustained. The CIC has acted
beyond the mandate of the Act and has transcended the scope of the
Act.
12. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 04.05.2016, is
quashed. No orders as to cost.
13. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
March 17, 2017
'rs'
