Shikha Bagga v. Public Information Officer, Director Of Education & ANR

$~8 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 4172/2017 SHIKHA BAGGA ..... Petitioner Through Mr K.B. Jha, Advocate and Ms Shikha Bagga, Advocate.

Versus

PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION & ANR ..... Respondents Through Mr Sanjoy Ghose, ASC with Ms Aparajita Sharma and Ms R. Jetley, Advocates for GNCTD.

Mr Kamal Gupta, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R

% 13.07.2017 1.

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the letters dated 18.04.2017 and 22.04.2017 issued by the Public Information Officer of Directorate of Education/ Deputy Director of Education. The petitioner's grievance is that the petitioner had sought certain information from the Director of Education under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereafter 'the Act') and instead of providing the information as sought for, the PIO has transferred the application to the Offices of the Deputy Director of Education (29 in number). The said offices had in turn transferred the petitioner's application to various schools (which petitioner claims is over

1400).

2.

Mr Sanjoy Ghose, learned counsel appearing for the respondents states that some of the information sought by the petitioner was confidential in nature and thus the Director may not be in a position to supply the same. He also referred to the decision in order dated 06.01.2011 passed in the case of Delhi State Public School Management Association v. Directorate of Education and Anr.: W.P. (C) 21/2011 and submitted that a coordinate bench of this Court had stayed the order directing dissemination of certain information on the website.

3.

The question involved in the present case does not entail examination of whether the information sought for is confidential or is to be withheld from the petitioner. The petitioner's grievance is regarding transfer of her application to other PIOs and thereafter to various schools. 4.

Clearly, transferring the petitioner's application to various schools is unsustainable. The PIO is required to provide all such information as sought for, subject to the exceptions as provided under the Act. 5.

In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned letters/orders dated 18.04.2017 and 22.04.2017 transferring the petitioner's application to various officers and various schools are set aside. It is directed that the petitioner's application be considered by respondent no.1 in accordance with law.

6.

It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the question whether the information sought for ought to be made available to

the petitioner under the provisions of the Act; that question would be examined by respondent no.1 (PIO) in the first instance. 7.

The petition is disposed of.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J JULY 13, 2017 pkv