Private College too under the RTI: HC issues notice to College and UGC

CHANDIGARH: 09.09.2016. On Friday, the G.S. SANDHAWALIA of the Chandigarh High Court issued notice to the IG College, Kaithal, UGC and Higher Education Department; seeking reply as to why the college receiving grants from Govt. should not be open to sharing information under the RTI.

            Notice came on the plea Mr. Pardeep Rapria, Advocate for Petitioner lady Monika Sangwan who had filed RTI Application seeking information about the implementation of ‘The Sexual Harassment Of Women At Workplace  Act, 2013’ However, the Principal of the College refused information on the ground that the appellant was neither the student of the college, nor employee of the college. During the hearing of the Appeal before the Information Commission the College took plea that it’s a private college and not bound to share information under the RTI Act. Sh. Yogender Paul Gupta in his order dated 29.10.2015 declared that the College was not under obligation to share information with people as the Petitioner had failed to establish that the College was in receipt of substantial financial aid from the Govt. Mr. Yogender Paul Gupta also rejected the request of the Petitioner to call the record of the Haryana Education Department and UGC to verify the grants received by the College. Mr. Gupta held that ‘the burden of proving the substantial grants was on the Petitioner in which she had failed’

            Before the High Court the Petitioner through her Advocate Pardeep Rapria raised the plea that the that ‘even private organization though not owned or controlled but substantially financed by the appropriate government will also fall within the definition of public authority under Section 2 (h) (d) (ii) of the Right to Information Act, 2005’ and the College was in receipt of the 95% grants from the Govt. and UGC also provides regular grants to the College. Mr. Rapria further took the plea that ‘there was a inbuilt mechanism in the Act to examine whether it is owned financed or controlled authority directly or indirectly by the funds provided by the authorities. It is submitted that in such circumstances by shifting the onus upon the petitioner, the finding that the college is not a public authority is not justified.’ A Petitioner does not have resources and power to know about each and every Govt. grant received by an institution and the Information Commissioner is adequately empowered to call the record of the Govt. to verify the grants received by an institute. After hearing the plea of the Counsel for Petitioner the HC issued notice to the IG College, UGC and Haryana Education Department for filing reply by 21.10.2016.

ORIGINAL ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 

AT CHANDIGARH 

CWP-18866-2016 

MONIKA SANGWAN 

V/S 

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, HARYANA AND OTHERS 

Present: Mr. Pardeep Kumar Rapria, Advocate 

for the petitioner. 

**** 

     Inter alia relies upon the observations made by the Apex Court in Paragraph No.39 in 'Thalappalam Ser. Cooperative Bank Ltd. and others Vs. State of Kerala and others '2013 (16) SCC 82 to submit that even private organization though not owned or controlled but substantially financed by the appropriate government will also fall within the definition of public authority under Section 2 (h) (d) (ii) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. 

         It is, accordingly, submitted that there was a inbuilt mechanism in the Act to examine whether it is owned financed or controlled authority directly or indirectly by the funds provided by the authorities. It is submitted that in such circumstances by shifting the onus upon the petitioner, the finding that the college is not a public authority is not justified. 

      Notice of motion for 21.10.2016. 

                                          (G.S. SANDHAWALIA) 

SEPTEMBER 09, 2016                                                                                                     JUDGE 

 ::: Downloaded on - 10-09-2016 11:32:30 :::