(1 of 5)

[CW-4784/2012]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4784/2012

Secretary Education Committee Sri Singh

----Petitioner

Versus

Smt. Mardula Mehta And Ors

----Respondent

Connected With

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11467/2011

Secretary Education Committee And Anr

----Petitioner

Versus

Ravi Kumar Mehta And Ors.

----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4785/2012

Secretary Education Committee

----Petitioner

Versus

Smt. Meena Bhandari And Ors

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. DD Chitlangi on VC

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Hemant Choudhary, GC a/w Mr.

Vishal Jangid, Dy. GC on VC

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

03/02/2022

In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its

highly infectious Omicron variant, lawyers have been advised to

refrain from coming to the Courts.

(2 of 5)

[CW-4784/2012]

Looking to the commonality of the issues involved in the

present petitions, they have been heard together and are being

decided by this common order.

For the sake of brevity, the facts and the prayer clauses are

being taken from SBCWP NO.4784/2012, while treating the same

as a lead case.

“(i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, Your

Lordship may kindly be pleased to accept and allowed this

writ petition.

(ii). By an appropriate writ, order or direction, your

Lordship may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the

impugned order dated 12.10.2011 (Annex.8) passed b the

respondents

no.2-

learned

Chief

Information

Commissioner Rajasthan, in Appeal No.104/2011 titled as

Smt. Mardula Mehta Vs. Public Information Officer District

Education Officer Secondary Jodhpur.

(iii). By an appropriate writ, order or direction, cost of the

petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the humble

petitioner. ”

Despite service, none-appears for the private respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the

mandate of Right to Information Act (RTI), 2005, particularly the

definition given in Section 2 (h) of RTI Act, 2005, the petitioner

does not fall within the domain of the Public Authority and thus, is

not bound to respond to the RTI application.

Learned counsel for the petitioner makes a specific

averments that earlier the same has been recorded by the learned

appellate authority in RTI application in the order dated

04.01.2011 (Annexure-7), which reads as follows:-

“1- vihykfFkZ;k vuqifLFkrA

(3 of 5)

[CW-4784/2012]

2- izR;FkhZ i{k ls Jh lqjs'k ey fla?koh mifLFkrA mUgksaus esjk /;ku

vihyksRrj fnukad 11&08&2010 dh vksj fnyk;k ftldh izfr

vihykfFkZ;k dks Hkh vxzsf"kr dh xbZ gS] vkSj dgk fd os lwpuk dk vf/

kdkj vf/kfu;e] 2005 dh /kkjk 2 ¼,p½ ds vuqlkj yksd izkf/kdj.k

dh ifjHkk"kk esa ugha vkrs blfy;s lwpuk nsus ds fy;s ck/; ugha gSA

3- vihykfFkZ;k us izR;qRrj izLrqr fd;k gS ftlesa ;g vafdr fd;k gS

fd izR;FkhZ la[;k ,d iaftd`r laLFkk gS] ftls Ldwy pykus ds fy;s

'kkldh; ekU;rk gS] mu ds rhu Ldwyksa esa ls nks vU; Ldwy

vuqnkfur gSa vkSj ,slh fLFkfr esa izR;FkhZ i{k }kjk mUgsa lwpuk ugha

nsdj fof/kd +=qfV dh xbZ gSA

4- eSaus izR;FkhZ i{k dks lwuk rFkk i=koyh ij miyC/k leLr i=kkfn

dk voyksdu fd;kA fdlh laLFkk ds ekU;rk izkIr gksus vFkok

iaftd`r gksus ls og laLFkk yksd izkf/kdj.k dh ifjHkk"kk esa ugha vkrh

gSA laLFkk ds ftu nks Ldwyksa esa vuqnku izkIr djus dk mYys[k gS og

vuqnku lacf/kr fo~~|ky; dks fey jgk gS] blfy;s os fo|ky;

rks vo'; yksd izkf/kdj.k dh ifjHkk"kk esa vk ldrs gS laLFkk ughaA

izR;FkhZ i{k us ftl laLFkk ds lanHkZ esa lwpuk dh vis{kk dh gS] og

Ldwy vihykfFkZ;k us vuqnkfur gS ,slk ugha fy[kk gSA bl n`f"V ls

izR;FkhZ i{k us vihykfFkZ;k dks lwpuk ugha nsdj dksbZ fof/kd =qfV ugha

dhA

5- ,slh fLFkfr esa orZeku vihy fujLruh; gS vkSj bls vLohdkj

fd;k tkrk gSA

6- vLrq] orZeku vihy mDrkuqlkj vLohdkj dh tkrh gSA

7- vkns'k dh izfr mHk; i{k dks izsf"kr dh tkosA

8- fu.kZ; ?kksf"krA”

Learned counsel for the petitioner has shown this Court to

Section 2 (h) of the Right to Information Ac