Uttarakhand High Court
Dr. Ashwani Kamboj And Others vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 26 June, 2018
Author: Sudhanshu Dhulia
Bench: Sudhanshu Dhulia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1455 of 2017
Dr. Ashwani Kamboj and others
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others
....Respondents
Present: Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Yogesh Pandey, Addl. C.S.C. for the State/respondent nos. 1,2, 5
& 6.
Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for the private respondents.
Hon'ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)
The petitioners are erstwhile members of Management Committee of "Mahadevi Kanya Pathshala College, Dehradun", who are aggrieved by the order of the State Information Commission dated 03.10.2016. Certain information was sought from the Public Information Officer of MKP (PG) College, Dehradun, which is admittedly a school under grant-in-aid. The applicant not being satisfied with the information supplied to him, filed a first appeal before the first appellate authority and ultimately the he filed a second appeal before the State Information Commission. The second appeal was disposed of by the State Information Commission vide order dated 03.10.2016, where certain directions were made by the Commission which may be taken in the nature of recommendation to the District Magistrate. The State Information Commission has observed that only the management committee and the authorized persons can take fee and other dues from students and persons who are not authorized cannot collect such fee, and in case it is taken by them, it is not only illegal but also 2 amounts to a criminal act on their part, and therefore proper procedure be adopted and FIR be lodged against them. Taking a clue from the said order, this Court has been informed, that the District Magistrate has lodged an FIR, inter alia, against the petitioners.
2. It is made clear that the case of the petitioners is that they were not before the State Information Commission and being the members of the committee of management, they were authorized to take fee. In fact there is nothing against them in the order dated 03.10.2016, except general directions.
3. The State Information Commission has got no specific powers under Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 to direct the authorities to lodge a first information report. Therefore, the order dated 03.10.2016 cannot be taken as a direction. At best it is an advice or recommendation. But the competent authorities for whom such directions are made should not routinely follow these orders but apply their mind and take action on being satisfied that such an action is required. This Court, however, has been informed that a first information report has been lodged by the District Magistrate. Consequently, nothing further needs to be done.
4. With the observations as above, writ petition stands disposed.
(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.)
Avneet/ 26.06.2018