Sakshi Bhatnagar vs Vice Chancellor, Kumaon University Nainital & others

Alok Singh, J.

1) Heard Mr. C. S. Rawat, Advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Mamta Bisht, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

2) By means of present writ petition, petitioner seeks following prayers, among others:

(i) issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 28.10.2014 passed by the learned State Information Commissioner.

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to supply the answer-sheet of Home Science 1st Paper to

the petitioner.

(iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents no.1 (Vice Chancellor) to punish the respondent nos.2, 3

& 4 for violating the R.T.I. Act u/S 20.

(iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to give the compensation to the petitioner U/s 20 of the

R.T.I. Act.

3) Brief facts of the case are that on 05.09.2012, the petitioner submitted an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking evaluated

copies of 1st & 2nd papers of Home Science. The Public Information Officer supplied the answer- sheet of 2nd paper of Home Science and failed to

supply answer- sheet of 1st paper of Home Science. Being aggrieved by the inaction of Public Information Officer, the petitioner filed a first appeal

under Section 19(1) of the Right to Information Act and requested to supply the copy of answer-sheet of 1st Paper of Home Science. When the

petitioner was not satisfied with the Uttarakhand Information Commissioner, Dehradun, she filed the present writ petition before this Court.

4) Perusal of the impugned order dated 28.10.2014 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) reveals that the reason for not supplying the desired information is

that the answersheets for the session 2011-2012 had already been weeded out in the month of April, 2013. Moreover, para 5 of the counter affidavit

filed on behalf of respondents is reproduced as under:

“5. That in reply to the contents of para 3 to 12 of the writ petition it is submitted that it is true that the petitioner requested the Public Information

Oficer of the University to supply the copies of the Home Science 1st and 2nd paper under the Right to Information Act, 2005 but even after

sufficient efforts made by the employees of the store room only copy of the Home Science 2nd paper could be supplied to the petitioner and copy of

the 1st paper could not be supplied to her because the concerned person, namely, Sri Bhuwan Chandra Pujari, a contact employee of the University

who was managing the store room, quit the job with effect from September, 2012 and bundles of answer books kept by him in the store room could

not be traced.â€​

5) The answer-sheets for the session 2011-2012 has already been weeded out in the month of April, 2013 and much water has flown since then.

6) In view of above, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.