Kamla Lohtia S.D. College v. The CPIO Under RTI, University Grant Commission and Anr

1. The petitioner - a college affiliated with the Punjab University - has filed the present petition impugning the order dated 29.12.2016 (hereafter 'the impugned order') passed by the Central Information Commission (hereafter 'the CIC) directing the petitioner to provide the following information to respondent no. 2:- "2. Appointment letters and addresses of person ^ appointed for the purpose of UGC Grants with salary paid to them out of UGC Grant "and work done for the purpose of concerned grants.

3. List of UGC Assets with Purchase cost and present status including equipments/software, audio-visual aids and other items.

4. Proposal of buildings, grants along with annexure during eleventh plan submitted by the college." 2018:DHC:9194

2. The petitioner claims that it is not a "pubUc authority" as defined under Section 2 (h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereafter 'the Act') and, therefore, is not obliged to provide any information under the Act.

3. It is seen that respondent no. 2 had filed an application dated ^ 23.11.2015 under the Act with the CPIO of respondent no. 1. Certain information had been provided by the CPIO; however, the remaining information (which the petitioner is now directed to provide by virtue ofthe impugned order) was notprovided.

4. Aggrieved by the same, respondent no. 2 preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) under Section 19 ofthe Act, which did not meet with any success. Aggrieved by the same, respondent no. 2 filed the second appeal under Section 19(3) ofthe Act, which was allowed by the impugned order, 5.,It is seen fi'om the impugned order that it is unreasoned and merely directs the petitioner to provide information sought at points 2 to 4 ofthe respondent no. 2's application dated 23.11.2015. It is also material to state that the petitioner was not aparty to the proceedings before the CIC.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the question whether the petitioner is a "public authority" has already been decided by the State Inforaiation Commission, Punjab in Appeal Case No.356/2016, captioned Gunnder Singh vs. Public Information Officer, Kamla Lohtia Sanatan Dharm College, Ludhiana and Anr, decided on, 11.08.2016.

1. Since the impugned order is passed without hearing the petitioner, which is the affected party, the same cannot be sustained. As notice above, the impugned order is also bereft ofany reasons and the impugned order is p liable to be set aside for this reason as well.

8. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the CIC is set aside and the matter is remanded to CIC to consider it afresh after giving due notice to all the concerned parties including the petitioner.

9. The petition and the pending application are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. VIBHUBAKHRU,J FEBRUARY 06,2018 uj