AHMEDABAD EDUCATION SOCIETY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. N. PATEL, J. This writ petition has been preferred against the order dated 6th July,2007 passed by State Chief Information Commissioner in complaint No. 1429 of 2006-07, whereby the petitioners who were not parties before the said authority, are directed to refund the fees under the Right to Information Act,2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act,2005" ). Against this order, third party has preferred the present petition on the ground that the petitioners were not joined as parties in the proceedings before State Chief Information commissioner and no opportunity of being heard was given and the direction has been given to the petitioners to refund fees to the original applicant i. e. to the present respondent No. 4, is dehors the provisions of the Act,2005.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that State Chief information Commissioner has not properly appreciated the provisions of the Act,2005 especially Section 11 read with Section 7 (7)of the Act nor the authorities below have properly appreciated the judgement delivered by this Court in the case of RELIANCE industries LIMITED V/s. GUJARAT state INFORMATION COMMISSION and others NOW, REPORTED IN AIR 2007 gujarat 203 as well as against the decision rendered by this Court in the case of gokalbhai NANBHAI PATEL V/s. CHIEF information COMMISSIONER and others NOW, REPORTED IN 2007 (3)G. L. H. 352. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no power, jurisdiction and authority with the state Chief Information Commissioner to pass an order of refund of fees especially when an application is preferred under section 18 of the Act,2005. He has also narrated the scope of power, jurisdiction and authority under Section 18 and 19 of the act,2005. At length, reliance has been placed upon the decisions rendered by this Court as stated hereinabove and pointed out that without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, State Chief Information commissioner has passed an order in respect of third party i. e. present petitioners, which is totally in defiance of the provisions of the act,2005, and, hence, the order passed by state Chief Information Commissioner deserves to be quashed and set aside. The question about refund is a civil dispute and, therefore, this right can be settled under section 9 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1907 by competent Civil Court and not under the right to Information Act,2005. This aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the State Chief Information Commissioner.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 submitted that it is a fact that the present petitioners are not heard. Nonetheless, looking to the resolution passed by Gujarat University dated 20th May,2006, the fees was ordered to be refunded as the per the impugned order and the petitioners are running the college and are bound by the resolution passed by Gujarat University.