Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2013 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (2) TMI 407 - HC - Indian LawsApplicability of provisions of RTI ACT - petitioners are school run by the Trust a private unaided one - petitioner contested that respondent No.1 directed the Education Officer (Secondary) to procure information from them and then to supply it to respondent No.5, has done something which is prohibited by RTI Act and also contested about denial of opportunity - Held that:- Perusal of impugned appellate judgment shows that Head Mistress working with petitioners i.e. petitioner No.3 had appeared before respondent No.1 on 20th September 2011 for giving evidence of the action taken on applications of respondent No.5. Hearing took place on 16th October 2011 and the impugned order records that on that day present respondent No.5 (appellant) was only present. This position has not been seriously disputed by respondent No.5. Respondent No.5 has not pointed out that there was any other notice or intimation to the petitioners to remain present for hearing on 16th October 2011. The submission of petitioners that out of documents demanded by respondent No.5 vide his two applications, available documents or information have been already supplied and remaining material is not available with it, therefore, does not find any consideration by respondent No.1. Issue whether copy of approval order sought for on 13th December 2010 by respondent No.5 is available with the petitioners or then, it is available with authorities granting approval i.e. respondent No.2, therefore, need not be looked into by this Court. Similarly, on 28th December 2012, respondent No.5 has demanded total nine documents or information & respondent 5 has stated that the information or documents in relation to serial Nos.1, 2, 3, 7, 8 and 9 are still not received by him. Whether this information or document/s is available with the petitioners or not can also be looked into by respondent No.1 after extending them an opportunity of hearing. It is not necessary for this Court to pronounce on it as petitioners have not been given necessary opportunity of hearing before passing of impugned order.
|