ORDER :

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the first respondent dated 06.11.2015 in CIC/CC/A/2014/001017-SA, CIC/CC/A/2014/002101-SA and CIC/CC/A/2014/000960-SA on his file and quash the same.

1. The petitioner is an unaided (self-financing private college) that claims to be approved by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) and affiliation with the Anna University. The petitioner was set-up and commenced operations from academic year 2002-03 onwards.

2. The petitioner had received an application dated 07.08.2014 from the third respondent/R3, an individual, that proceeded upon the lines that the petitioner, though a private college, was a public authority under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short ‘RTI Act’).

3. In this context, third respondent refers to several decisions of both the Courts as well as Central Information Commission/R1 being, Poorna Prajna Public School vs. Central Information Commission and Others, 2009 SCC Online Del. 3077, Mehjabin Kousar vs. Public Information Officer/Assistant Director of Education (East), Directorate of Education (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), RTI Section Public Information Officer/Deputy Director of Education (Zone-1), Directorate of Education (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Zone I through Ms. Neha Shankar, Mr. Rajesh Joshi and Mr. M.K. Sharma, 2018 SCC Online CIC 1148.

4. Thus, invoking the provisions of the Act, third respondent sought the following information from the college:

“1. Certified copy of the Application filed by the PGP College of Engineering and Technology for the first time to seek approval from the AICTE, New Delhi, along with all enclosures appended therein with respect to the Handbook on approval Process of AICTE to conduct the Engineering Courses, as per section 2(j)(ii) of the RTI Act.

2. Certified copy of all the applications submitted year wise along with enclosures, for seeking Extension of approval from AICTE, New Delhi, w.e.f. second year onwards to till date.

3. Permission to inspect all the features certified to be available by the Expert Visit Committee, in your College, as per the Hand book on Approval Process prescribed by the AICTE, New Delhi, in accordance to section 2(j)(ii) of the RTI Act 2005, from First year to till date.”

5. The information was sought for under threat that if the college does not supply the same, not only would R3 file an appeal before R1, but would also pray for the imposition of penalty upon the Principal and compensation under the provisions of the Act as well as de-recognition of the college by the AICTE, New Delhi and suitable action under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

6. Though this letter is addressed to the petitioner college, at paragraph 1, the name of the college is mentioned as PGP College of Engineering and Technology. The error was corrected by R3 in letter dated 20.08.2014. It appears clear to me that R3 has been making a similar request qua several other colleges as well, which perhaps accounts for the error in the name of the college.

7. The petitioner responded on 03.09.2014 stating that the details sought for are not required to be maintained under law and are therefore, unavailable. They also objected to the application itself contending that being a private unaided institution, they would not fall under the cover and ambit of the RTI Act. Objecting further to the intimidation by R3, an FIR is stated to have been registered though the fate of the same is unknown.

8. Upon receipt of the above letter, R3 approached the first respondent by way of an appeal reiterating the contents of his letter dated 07.08.2014 and his threats. Though the petitioner was favoured with a copy of the appeal, further progress in the matter was not brought to its notice till such time it received the impugned order, dated 06.11.2015. This order has disposed three appeals and thus my initial view tha