Chandan Kumar Chandan and Ors. v. Anup Kumar Aggarwal and Anr

1. The petition impugns the order dated 4tt'May,2077 of the Central Information Commission (CIC). The grievance of the petitioners before the CIC was that the information fumished by the deemed PIO of Pt. Deen Dayal Institute for Physically Handicapped was false, fabricated and misleading.

2. The CIC has held that the petitioners have failed to establish that the information furnished was false and incomplete and if the information fumished.| and the replies filed do not match, the CIC cannot look into this aspect and adjudicate the same. Liberty was granted to the petitioners to agitate the inconsistency before appropriate Court. n'.P.(C) 65gt/201 t Pogc I oJ 2 2011:DHC:18164

3. The petitioner No.l appearing in person, in this regard, has handed over in Court the copy of the counter affrdavit dated I2n6{' October,2010 of the Institute in W.P.(C) 24012010 where the Institute had stated that "some other students of the Institute also made a complaint to the Dean of University of Delhi against the petitioners".

3. The petitioner No.l next invites attention to Page 24 of the paper book stated to be the same complaint by the other students and which is addressed to (" the Director of the Institute..- 4. He thus argues that it was falsely stated in the counter affidavit aforesaid that the complaint was submitted to the Dean and when it was in fact submitted to the Director.

5. A copy of the complaint from Pages 24 to 30 of the paper book shows that the same was also marked to Dean of the Universitv of Delhi.

6. In the circumstances, no error requiring interference in the order of the CIC is made out.

7. There is no merit in the petition; the same is dismissed. I refrain from imposing costs on petitioners.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW.J SEPTEMBER 09,2011 mb..,vP.(c) 6s9t,20t r /F. e