Dismissed

Ims University v. State Information Commissioner Dehradun and Another

Uttarakhand HC2 Nov 2019WPMS/2460/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Uttarakhand held that a private university established by a State Legislature Act is a 'Public Authority' under the RTI Act. The Court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the mandatory disclosure of information, directing the university to supply details within one month and face a penalty.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to supply information within one month and liable for a penalty of Rs. 25,000 under Section 20 of the RTI Act.

Ims University Vs State Information Commissioner… — RTI and Transparency | Uttarakhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2460 of 2017

¶3

IMS University ....Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

State Information Commissioner, Dehradun

¶6

….…Respondents

¶7

With Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2461 of 2017

¶8

IMS Unison University ....Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

State Information Commissioner, Dehradun

¶11

….…Respondents

¶12

Present:- Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.

¶14

In these two writ petitions, the petitioner before this Court is a private University known as “IMS University”. Admittedly, the University is the creature of an Act known as “The IMS Unison University Act, 2012” – an Act passed by the State Legislature of Uttarakhand being Uttarakhand Act No. 13 of 2013.

¶15

Under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (from hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), the “Public Authority” is defined under Section 2 (h) of the Act. Section 2 (h) of the Act reads as under:-

¶16

(h) “public authority” means any authority or body or institution of

¶17

¶18

self-government established or constituted-

¶19

(a) by or under the Constitution;

¶20

(b) by any other law made by Parliament;

¶21

¶22

(d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any-

¶23

(i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed;

¶24

(ii) non-Government organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government;”

¶25

(Emphasis supplied)

¶26

Petitioner admittedly comes under the definition of the “Public Authority” under Section 2 (h) (c) of the Act as it has been created by a law made by the State Legislature. On this aspect, there could not have been any dispute that the petitioner is indeed a “Public Authority”, and therefore, comes within the purview of the Act, being a “Public Authority”, and therefore was liable to furnish information as defined under Section 2 (f) of the Act. Moreover, a mandatory duty has also been cast upon the “Public Authority” for designating a Public Information Officer under Section 5 of the Act. There are other obligations of the Public Authority under Section 4 of the Act as to how to distribute the information, etc. All this, admittedly, the petitioner has not done.

¶27

Consequently when the private respondent sought certain information against the petitioner in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2460 of 2017, such as, as to how many students of BBA for academic session 2015-16 were informed through notice regarding non-fulfillment of documents in respect of educational qualification, as to

¶28

¶29

how many students of BBA of academic year 2015-16 have made available to the office, the documents regarding educational qualification, etc., then such an information ought to have been furnished by the petitioner.

¶30

The petitioner, however, failed to furnish the information. The private respondent ultimately had to go before the State Information Commission under Section 19 of the Act. The State Information Commission vide its order dated 14.06.2017 directed the petitioner to furnish the information within a stipulated period of time. The petitioner instead of complying the order passed by the State Information Commission has approached this Court by means of the present writ petitions.

¶31

The only contention of the petitioner before this Court is that it is not a “Public Authority”. This argument of the petitioner is totally misconceived as it has already been stated by this Court in its preceding paragraphs that the petitioner is a “Public Authority” under the Act being a creature of the Statute.

¶32

Writ petitions, therefore, have no merit and the same are hereby dismissed.

¶33

Considering the fact that being a “public authority” under the Act, since the petitioner has not furnished the information as yet, the petitioner is directed to supply the information to the private respondent within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall also liable for a penalty of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) before the State Information Commission within three

¶34

¶35

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order as admittedly there is a delay in any case on part of the petitioner in furnishing the information.

¶36

(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 02.11.2019

¶37

Nitesh/

Ims University v. State Information Commissioner Dehradun and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ims University v. State Information Commissioner Dehradun 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

Similar cases

Smt. Priyanwanda Vs Tanvir Akhtar Kurashi And Anr.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Lata Devi and Others

Smt Lata Devi and Others Vs Vijay Kumar and Another

Sumit Kumar Vs Iiird Fast Track Court/a.D.J. Hardwar and Ors.

Vedansh Dwivedi Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Another

Executive Engineer Electricity Distribution Division Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. Almora Vs Smt. Tara Jeena and Another