Remanded

Jindal School v. M. Sridhar Acharyulu & Anr.

Delhi HC7 Nov 2017W.P.(C)/3915/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside an CIC order directing JINDAL SCHOOL to furnish information. It held the CIC must first determine if the school is a 'public authority' before issuing directions. The matter was remanded to the CIC.

What did the court decide?

The direction to furnish information is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the CIC to determine if the petitioner is a public authority.

Jindal School Vs M. Sridhar Acharyulu & Anr. — RTI and Transparency | Delhi HC (2017)

¶1

$~5

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 3915/2014 and CM No. 7891/2014

¶4

JINDAL SCHOOL ..... Petitioner Through: Mr Nikhil Sharma, Advocate. versus M. SRIDHAR ACHARYULU & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: None.

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU O R D E R % 07.11.2017

¶6

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning an order dated 29.05.2014 passed by the Central Information Commission (hereafter ‘CIC’).

¶7

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that although CIC has issued directions to the petitioner for providing certain information, the petitioner had no notice of the proceedings before the CIC and the impugned order was passed without hearing the petitioner.

¶8

The impugned order passed indicates that a submission was made before the CIC that the petitioner had refused to give a copy of the appointment letter to respondent no.2. It is in this context that the CIC had proceeded to issue directions to the petitioner school to discharge its obligation under law and furnish the information sought by the respondent no. 2 to the Directorate of Education, GNCT of Delhi in order that the said information could be provided to respondent no.2.

¶9

The question whether the petitioner is a public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, although

¶10

raised before the CIC, was not considered.

¶11

In view of the above, the impugned order to the extent that it directs the petitioner to furnish information sought by respondent no.2 to the Directorate of Education, is set aside. No direction can be issued by the CIC to the petitioner without determining whether the petitioner is a public authority and whether it is within the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

¶12

In view of the above, the matter is remanded to the CIC to consider it afresh and determine the question whether the petitioner is a public authority.

¶13

It is clarified that all rights and contentions of the parties are left open.

¶14

The petition and the application are disposed of with the aforesaid directions.

¶15

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

¶16

NOVEMBER 07, 2017 RK

Jindal School v. M. Sridhar Acharyulu & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jindal School v. M. Sridhar Acharyulu & Anr.

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

Similar cases

A.K. Tandon Vs Central Bank of India & Anr.

Nafe Singh & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Rajiv Kumar Singh Vs Sub-Registrar-Ii, District West & Anr.

Vinod Kumar Anand Vs Ministry of Health and Family Welfare & Ors.

Gujarat Alkalies & Chemicals Ltd. Vs the Designated Authority & Ors.

Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs the Designated Authority & Ors.

Rajinder Singh & Ors. Vs Land Acquisition Collector (New Delhi) & Ors.

Harveer Singh Vs Delhi Power Supply Co. Ltd., Thru. Chairman

Rajiv Kumar Singh Vs Sub-Registrar-Ii, District West & Anr.

Vinod Kumar Anand Vs Ministry of Health and Family Welfare & Ors.

Praveen Kumar Maakar Vs Union of India & Anr.

Ankur Khanna Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Gudda Vs Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.

The Delhi Golf Club Ltd. Vs the Meghalaya State Commission of Women