The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power under Sec.20(2) of the RTI Act cannot be mechanically exercised, and the focus should be on whether the necessary information sought by the Information seeker has been furnished.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer:  The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the Order dated 23.6.2014 in Case No.54671/Enquiry/C/2013 on the file of the 1st and 2nd respondent and quash the same and directing the same respondents to apply the provisions of Sec. 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act for certain queries in the RTI Application in Case No.54671/Enquiry/C/2013 filed by the 3rd respondent in respect of the petitioner institution.)

The writ petition challenging the impugned order passed by the first respondent recommending disciplinary proceedings against the Public Relation Officer concerned; to communicate the same to the commission by forwarding the copy of charge memo served to the Officer concerned and also directing the District Education Officer to go to the writ petitioner Institution; to scrutinise the documents of the petitioner's institution; furnish the information as sought for by the third respondent and file a report to the commission to that effect.

2. The brief facts leading to filing of the present writ petition is as follows:

The third respondent has sought for certain information more particularly, the following information;

Association of Transparency and Anti-Corruption by letter dated 2.9.2013 addressed to the Public Information Officer of the petitioner Institution wherein it is stated as follows:

The following information may be furnished under RTI Act, 2005.

1. Copy of the order/rules from the Government prescribing Educational Qualification and experience for the post of Head Mistress in Higher Secondary School.

2. Copy of rules/decision of meeting / minutes in respect of filling up of post of teaching staff by promotion in Bentinck Higher Secondary School for Girls.

3. Copy of procedures prescribed for filling up of post of teaching staff by promotion or recruitment including the post of Headmistress at Bentinck Higher Secondary School for Girls.

4. Copy of the relevant portion of the act/rules prescribing to treat the applications and details as private information in respect of the application filed by applicants seeking appointment in at Bentinck Higher Secondary School for Girls.

5. Copy of trust deed/ by-laws/constitution under which St.Christopher's College of Education and Bentinck Higher Secondary School for Girls, stands registered.

6. List of teachers in Bentinck Higher Secondary School for Girls along with details such as Educational qualification, date of entry, date of promotion, extracurricular achievements in Bentinck Higher Secondary School for Girls.

7. Copy of M.A. Literature course completion / degree certificate of Marian Usha Rani along with details of permission for pursuing the degree under correspondence course/period of leave availed during the pursuing the course.

8. The details about the classes/standard and subjects taught and allowed to handle by Marian Usha Rani during her entire service period in Bentinck Higher Secondary School for Girls.

Thereafter, the third respondent has filed an appeal before the first respondent stating that the information has not been properly furnished. The first respondent in his proceedings dated 19.5.2014 having found that information in respect of the 7 items have been furnished, however, come to the conclusion that the entire information has not been furnished. It is also found that the Public Information officer has not deputed the senior officer to the Commission. Thereafter, show cause notice was issued to the writ petitioner and final order passed directing the petitioner Institution to take disciplinary proceedings against the Public Information Officer besides direction to the Joint Director of School Education to conduct search, collect information and furnish the same to the third respondent. The said order is impugned in the pres