University v. Gardens

Counsel for the Appellant:MR.M.V.RAJA RAAM Counsel for the Respondent No.1: MR.V.AJAYAKUMAR The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No : 250 of 2009 Judgment: (Per Hon’ble Smt. T. Meena Kumari,J) This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 13.11.2008 of the learned single judge in Writ Petition No. 21272 of 2008, whereby and whereunder the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the appellant-University to furnish the copies of the documents sought for by the respondent-writ petitioner in the said writ petition. The facts in brief are that the respondent herein is a Professor in Civil Engineering Department of Andhra University. While so, he made an application to the Registrar, Andhra University on 22.1.2008 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 requesting him to furnish the following documents : 1) Minutes of the Meeting of the “Selection Committee” for filling up the post of Readers in Civil Engineering, Andhra University as per Advertisement No.

1/86, dated 09.05.1986 and any other recorded information of the Selection Committee as per the procedures of Andhra University. 2) Minutes of the Meeting of the Executive Council of Andhra Pradesh held on 31.1.1989 regarding the information of posting orders and positions of Reader posts in Civil Engineering Department of Andhra Pradesh. The Registrar, however, through order dated 1.2.2008, rejected the request of the respondent on the ground that the information sought for by the respondent was confidential and the same cannot be furnished. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Vice Chancellor, who is the appellate authority on 18.2.2008. Even while the appeal was pending before the Vice Chancellor, the respondent preferred another appeal before the State Information Commissioner. In the interrignum, the Vice Chancellor passed orders on 28.3.2008, rejecting the appeal of the respondent.

It appears, the State Information Commission, thereafter, closed the appeal on the ground that the University Executive Council had taken up the matter in its meeting held on 21.4.2008 and the request of the appellant was complied with. Assailing the same, the respondent filed Writ Petition No. 21272 of 2008 before the learned single Judge. While opposing the writ petition, the appellant-University has filed its counter stating that the information sought for by the respondent is confidential and hence, it cannot be furnished. It is further stated that since the information sought for by the respondent was already shown to him, which was also admitted by him, the request of the respondent had been complied with. The learned single judge having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the order impugned in the writ petition, through order dated 13.11.2008, allowed the said writ petition.

Aggrieved by the same, the University filed the present writ appeal. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the order under appeal. Undisputably, the information sought for by the respondent relates to information/copies of the Minutes of the Selection Committee and the Executive Council relating to filling up and selection of the posts of Readers in the Civil Engineering Department of the appellant-University. Further it cannot be said that the information sought for by the respondent was so confidential that it would endanger the security of the State. That apart, in the counter affidavit filed by the University in the writ petition, when the University clearly admitted that the respondent was permitted to go through the documents sought for by him, it cannot be now allowed to contend that the documents sought for by the respondent were confidential. The learned single Judge, was therefore justified in allowing the writ petition and he did not commit any error in directing the appellant-University to furnish the information sought for by the respondent.

In the circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the learned single Judge. The writ appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. However, we grant time to the appellant-University till 16.3.2009 to furnish the copies of the documents sought for by the respondent in his application dated 22.1.2008, as per Rules. DATE: 5th March, 2009 ___________________ T. MEENA KUMARI,J __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J