Dismissed

Anil Pannikker v. State Information Commission & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Aug 2012CWP/12414/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a CWP regarding denial of admission forms, this court held no interference was needed as the course was completed and a challenge to admissions for the next session was already pending. The legal issue on third-party information denial was left open.

What did the court decide?

The present petition is dismissed without recording any finding on the legal issue regarding the denial of information to a third party.

Anil Pannikker Vs State Information Commission… — RTI and Transparency | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CWP No. 12414 of 2012 [1]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

C.W.P. No. 12414 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.8.2012

¶4

Dr. Anil Pannikker

¶5

..Petitioner

¶6

¶7

State Information Commission and others

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL

¶10

Present: Mr. Sardavinder Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Rajesh Bindal J.

¶12

Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 17.5.2012, passed by the State Information Commission, whereby the information sought by the petitioner in the form of admission forms of the candidates, who were admitted to BVSc & AH program and VLDD program under NRI/NRI sponsored/Industry sponsored category for the academic session 2011-12, was declined.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the information could not be denied on the plea that it was a third party information. He further submitted that against the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in P. A. Inamdar and others v. State of Maharashtra and others, Appeal (Civil) 5041 of 2005 dated 12.8.2005, Lala Lajpat Rai University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Hisar (for short, 'the University') is granting admissions in the course under the category of NRI sponsored seats. When the information was sought, that was declined. He submitted that the course was only for a period of one year. The information sought in the present case was for the year 2011-12, however for the admissions for the session 2012-13 in violation of the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, CWP No. 12416 of 2012 has been filed in this

¶14

CWP No. 12414 of 2012 [2]

¶15

court, in which notice of motion has been issued to the respondents and it has been directed that the admissions shall be subject to the ultimate outcome of the writ petition.

¶16

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, in my opinion, in the present case no interference is called for by this court, as the information sought was pertaining to the candidates who were admitted in the course for the session 2011-12. The course has already been completed. The writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the action of the University in granting admission in the course under NRI sponsored seats for the session 2012-13 is already pending before this court.

¶17

Accordingly, leaving the legal issue regarding denial of information to the petitioner claiming that the same to be pertaining to third party, open and without recording any definite finding thereon, the present petition is dismissed.

¶18

( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge

¶19

17.8.2012 mk

Anil Pannikker v. State Information Commission & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Pannikker v. State Information Commission & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Punjab Agr.University Ludhiana & Anr. Vs Polc Bhatinda & Ar

Deepak Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Subhash Arora and Anr. Vs State of Punjab etc.

Amandeep Kaur & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Daman Kumar Vs Pu and Ors.

Mahindra & Mahindra Vs P.O., Industrial Tribunal-Labour Court, Panipat % Anr.