Allowed

Prabha v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC8 Jul 2024WRIC/20423/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A student whose B.A. Vth semester result was marked U (unfair means) sought her answer-sheet under RTI after a notice warned answer-sheets would be weeded out. She applied the day after the notice; the University rejected it as beyond time. The court held the vague counter affidavit implied acceptance and allowed the petition.

What did the court decide?

University directed to provide copy of the Hindi Literature answer-sheet to the petitioner online within ten days from receipt of certified copy of the order.

Prabha vs State of Up and Another — RTI and Transparency | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:150789

¶2

Court No. - 34

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20423 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Prabha Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Abha Pandey,Lal Ji Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pratik Chandra

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard.

¶7

The present writ petition has been preferred for issuing direction to the respondent no. 2 to produce the copy of Shaitya Shashtra Aur Hindi Alochana of the subject Hindi Literature Examination 2023-24 of Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) Vth semester (Nep) of petitioner in which her result was declared as U (Unfair means) and to direct the respondent no. 2 to take appropriate decision on the application of the petitioner dated 24.04.2024 and applications dated 01.05.2024 & 03.05.2024 filed under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the University Authorities have alleged that the petitioner was involved in mass copying and that is why her result of B.A. Vth semester has not been declared. The Office order dated 28.02.2024 was issued by the Controller Examination to the affiliated colleges with the University to inform the students who have been declared using U.F.M./mass copying, to submit their reply online within three days of the information and thereafter, the decision will be taken by the enquiry committee constituted by the University. After receiving the said information, the petitioner had made her representation online.

¶9

It is further submitted that on 23.04.2024, a notice was issued by the Controller of Examination informing the students that the students who want to obtain their answer-sheets through R.T.I., they may apply for the same latest by 26.04.2024 otherwise, the answer-sheets would be weeded out. In pursuance of the said notice, the petitioner had applied under the R.T.I. on 24.04.2024 i.e. on the very next date but when no information was provided to the petitioner, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

¶10

On the other hand, learned counsel for the University has submitted that the petitioner had not applied under the R.T.I. Act within thirty days, as required by the notice and said information has been provided to the petitioner by replying

¶11

his R.T.I. application on 18.04.2024 & 16.05.2024.

¶12

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, the submission of learned counsel for the University that the R.T.I. was replied on 18.04.2024 is not acceptable for the reason that if the notice was issued on 23.04.2024 and in pursuance thereof, the petitioner had given an application under the R.T.I. on 24.04.2024, then how the information could be denied to the petitioner on 18.04.2024.

¶13

The University only denied the information on the ground that it was applied beyond the period as mentioned in the notice i.e. 30 days but the information was sought by the petitioner on the very next day of the date of notice on 24.04.2024 and the said averment made in para 7 of the writ petition which has simply been stated in para 23 of the counter affidavit i.e. "that the contents of paragraph no. 7 of the writ petition are not accepted in the form stated". The vague reply in the counter affidavit not denying the documents i.e. Annexure no. 3 filed by the petitioner on 24.04.2024 amounts to accepting the application given by the petitioner under the R.T.I. Act on 24.04.2024. The ground of rejection taken by the University by not providing information to the student i.e. the petitioner is not tenable in the eyes of law and is not acceptable.

¶14

In view of the facts, circumstances and discussion made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed.

¶15

The respondent-University is directed to provide the copy of Shaitya Shashtra Aur Hindi Alochana of the subject Hindi Literature Examination 2023-24 of Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) Vth semester (Nep) to the petitioner through online mode within a period of ten days from the date of production/receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶16

Order Date :- 17.9.2024 Nitesh

¶17

Digitally signed by :- NITESH KUMAR TEWARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Prabha v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabha v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Chaudhary Jamadar Singh Mahila Mahavidyalaya Thru Secy. Vs State of U.P. Thru Principal Secretary/Commissioner and Ors.

Punjab National Bank Circle Office Gomti Nagar Lko.through Vs District Magistrate / Collector Lucknow and Another

Mohd. Deen Vs the State of U.P Thru Secy. Labour U.P and Ors.

Heeralal Verma @ Heeralal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

Mohammad Khaliq Revenue Vs State of U.P.through Secy.Revenue and Finance Lko.and 3 O

Anil Kumar Vs Civil Judge (J.D) Sultanpur and 6 Others