Dr. Devendra Swaroop Bhargawa vs Central Information Commission and Others

Heard Sri Atul Kumar Bansal, the learned Counsel for the Appellant and Sri Vipul Sharma, the learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4

Even though we are not happy with the explanation given by the Appellant, nonetheless, in the interest of justice, we are condoning the delay. The Delay Condonation Applications are allowed. The Special Appeals are treated to have been filed within the stipulated period.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant, it transpires that the Petitioner vide application dated 26th July, 2006 had asked for various information from the University from the period 1984 onwards. Some of the information was supplied and the remaining information was not supplied on the ground that the record had been weeded out and that the matter had become old. The learned Single Judge found that the information so wanted by the Petitioner was not only old but it had also been weeded out and that some of the information sought was voluminous, for which an inspection was allowed, which the Petitioner did not avail. The Court further finds that the Petitioner had approached the Central Information Commission where also he did not appear and accordingly, the appeal was dismissed with the observation that the Appellant is free to approach the Commission in case he finds that the information supplied to the Petitioner was incomplete and inaccurate. Since this was not done, the Court does not find any reason to entertain the appeals.