LAWS(J&K)-2021-12-46

NEEMA BHAT Vs. STATE

Decided On December 16, 2021
Neema Bhat Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the case is taken up for final consideration.

(2.) Through the medium of present petition, petitioner seeks issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to furnish copies of the documents sought for by her under RTI Act from the respondents of those candidates who had been provisionally selected for the post of Receptionist (State Cadre) Tourism Department published on 8/9/2009 in the newspaper. The petitioner had been unreasonably and illegally denied the weightage to the course undergone by her though granted the same to the others resulting into illegal denial of the petitioner of her place in the select list is the reason to seek information from the respondents.

(3.) Learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner submits that on 12/2/2010 the petitioner had approached respondent No.2 seeking certain information under the Right to Information Act regarding educational qualifications, diplomas, certificates, recognition status and name of the institutions where from said qualifications had been obtained by the candidates provisionally selected for the post of Receptionist (State Cadre) Tourism Department published on 8/9/2009 in the newspaper. Upon denial by respondent No.2 to provide requisite information, another application dtd. 7/3/2010 was moved by the petitioner for the said purpose. It is further stated that no information was provided to the petitioner within time prescribed in Sec. 7 of the Act and in terms of the aforesaid provisions, the information is deemed to have been refused by the respondent No.2. However, after the expiry of the time prescribed under the Act, a communication being No.SSB/Adm/RTI-73/34/10 dtd. 6/4/2010 was received from the office of the respondent No.2 purportedly providing the information sought for by the petitioner. Alongwith the said communication, no document or information sought for by the petitioner was, however, provided by respondent No.3. Again on denial by the concerned, the petitioner filed an appeal under Sec. 16 of the Act before respondent No.4 but no response was received by the petitioner. The second appeal lies to the State Information Commission and as State Information Commission was not functional in J&K, as such, petitioner was constrained to invoke the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court.