CWP-13040 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court of Punjab and Haryana Central Information Commission and another CORAM: Present: KULDEEP TIWARI 1. 226/227 of the Constitution of India, dated 26.04.2022 (Annexure P Commission 2. impression that Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, (RTI Act), with the Public Information Offi information: 13040-2022 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh Versus Central Information Commission and another CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Shubreet Kaur Saron, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Addl. Solicitor General of India, with Mr. Arvind Seth, Senior Panel Counsel, for respondent No.1. Mr. Uday Agnihotri, Advocate, for respondent No.2. (Through Hybrid Mode) **** KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (Oral) Through the instant writ petition, as cast under Article of the Constitution of India, challenge is thrown to the order dated 26.04.2022 (Annexure P-6), passed by Commission-respondent No.1. Succinctly put: respondent No.2 impression that petitioner is the appropriate Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, (RTI Act), with the Public Information Officer of this High Court information:- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-13040-2022 Date of decision: 21.08.2025 , Chandigarh ….Petitioner Central Information Commission and another ….Respondents KULDEEP TIWARI Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Shubreet Kaur Saron, Advocate, Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Addl. Solicitor General of India, with Mr. Arvind Seth, Senior Panel Counsel, Mr. Uday Agnihotri, Advocate, instant writ petition, as cast under Articles challenge is thrown to the order 6), passed by the Central Information respondent No.2, under a bonafide appropriate authority for the office of the Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law (RGNUL), had filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, (RTI Act), with the High Court, seeking following 5 ….Respondents s challenge is thrown to the order the Central Information bonafide for the office of the filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, (RTI Act), with the following AMIT KUMAR 2025.08.23 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-13040 3. Court clarified that the information control of the submitted before Hon’ble 13040-2022 -2- “1. Kindly state date on the Enquiry Report was sent/furnished/communicated Krishna Murari, for Chancellor, Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab. 2. Kindly state date on which the Enquiry Report was sent/furnished/communicated to both parties, i.e. the complainants and the respondents matter. 3. Kindly provide copy of the Enquiry Report aforementioned matter. Reference is made to following Hon’ble Central Information Commission (CIC): a) B. Premanand vs. Department of Post, Coimbatore (TN), Appeal No.252/ICPB/2006 (Order dated 02.01.2007): CIC holds that in case an enquiry is conducted and a report is prepared, the same has be furnished (“Annexure III”). b) Kamlesh Lal v. National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd., Appeal No.122/ICPB/2006 (Order dated 9.10.2006): CIC holds that the denial of the result of enquiry on the complaint would defeat the very purpose of the RTI Act, had been conducted on the basis of the complaints of the appellant, copies of the enquiry report, if action has been completed on such report should be furnished (“Annexure IV”) 4. Kindly state date on which Smt. Manjot Kaur, Officer concluded the enquiry matter.” In response to the application clarified that the information in question control of the petitioner. It was also clarified that submitted before Hon’ble the Chancellor of the University concerned, date on the Enquiry Report was sent/furnished/communicated to Hon’ble Mr. Justice Krishna Murari, for Chancellor, Rajiv Gandhi National on which the Enquiry Report was sent/furnished/communicated to both parties, i.e. the complainants and the respondents in the aforementioned provide copy of the Enquiry Report in the Reference is made to following decisions of the Hon’ble Central Information Commission (CIC): B. Premanand vs. Department of Post, Coimbatore (TN), Appeal No.252/ICPB/2006 (Order dated 02.01.2007): CIC holds that in case an enquiry is conducted and a report is prepared, the same has to be furnished (“Annexure III”). Kamlesh Lal v. National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd., Appeal No.122/ICPB/2006 (Order dated 9.10.2006): CIC holds that the denial of the result of enquiry on the complaint would defeat the very purpose of the RTI Act, 2005. Whatever enquiry had been conducted on the basis of the complaints of the appellant, copies of the enquiry report, if action has been completed on such report should be furnished (“Annexure IV”) date on which Smt. Manjot Kaur, Enquiry Officer concluded the enquiry in the aforementioned In response to the application (supra), the PIO of this High in question is not held by/under the clarified that the enquiry report was Chancellor of the University concerned, date on the Enquiry Report was to Hon’ble Mr. Justice Krishna Murari, for Chancellor, Rajiv Gandhi National on which the Enquiry Report was sent/furnished/communicated to both parties, i.e. the in the aforementioned in the decisions of the B. Premanand vs. Department of Post, Coimbatore (TN), Appeal No.252/ICPB/2006 (Order dated 02.01.2007): CIC holds that in case an enquiry to Kamlesh Lal v. National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd., Appeal No.122/ICPB/2006 (Order dated 9.10.2006): CIC holds that the denial of the result of enquiry on the complaint would defeat the 2005. Whatever enquiry had been conducted on the basis of the complaints of the appellant, copies of the enquiry report, if action has been completed on such report should be Enquiry in the aforementioned of this High is not held by/under the the enquiry report was Chancellor of the University concerned, AMIT KUMAR 2025.08.23 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-13040 and not before Hon’ble dissatisfaction statutory first appeal, under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act, which was dismissed by the Appellate Authori the following observations 4. Central Information Commission was disposed of, that “there administrative functions performed by the staff of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana for the Hon’ble Chief Justice in his official capacity as also in his capacity as the Chancellor of RGNUL these observations of both the offices, 13040-2022 -3- and not before Hon’ble the Chief Justice dissatisfaction from the abovesaid response, ry first appeal, under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act, which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority, vide order dated 18.02.2020, with the following observations:- “Furthermore, the appellant has submitted that, PIO has not transferred his RTI public authority as per law. To this point, this authority is of view that the queries under consideration prima facie clearly provides that the matter solely relates to the Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law which is a se appellant being an advocate presumed to have knowledge of proper authority and when a person has knowledge of proper public authority and still he files an application under RTI Act, 2005 to some other public authority then transfer his RTI application and the same has held by Hon’ble Central Information Commission in CIC/SA/A2016/001483 titled as R.S. Gupta Vs. LG Office Accordingly, it is held that reply given by Ld. PIO on these points is legally tenable, warranting no interference. Consequently, respondent No.2 Central Information Commission by filing statutory second appeal, which disposed of, vide order dated 26.04.2022 (Annexure P there appears to be a direct and live nexus between the administrative functions performed by the staff of the Hon’ble High Punjab and Haryana for the Hon’ble Chief Justice in his official capacity as also in his capacity as the Chancellor of RGNUL hese observations were made on the basis of the fact both the offices, RGNUL and District Chief Justice of this High Court. Fetching the abovesaid response, respondent No.2 had filed ry first appeal, under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act, which was ty, vide order dated 18.02.2020, with “Furthermore, the appellant has submitted that, PIO has not transferred his RTI application to the concerned public authority as per law. To this point, this authority is of view that the queries under consideration prima facie clearly provides that the matter solely relates to the Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law which is a separate public authority an appellant being an advocate presumed to have knowledge of proper authority and when a person has knowledge of proper public authority and still he files an application under RTI Act, 2005 to some other public authority then PIO is not bound to I application and the same has held by Hon’ble Central Information Commission in “Case No. CIC/SA/A2016/001483 titled as R.S. Gupta Vs. LG Office.” Accordingly, it is held that reply given by Ld. PIO on y tenable, warranting no interference.” respondent No.2 approached the learned by filing statutory second appeal, which order dated 26.04.2022 (Annexure P-6), holding appears to be a direct and live nexus between the administrative functions performed by the staff of the Hon’ble High Punjab and Haryana for the Hon’ble Chief Justice in his official capacity as also in his capacity as the Chancellor of RGNUL.” However, made on the basis of the fact that since the PIOs RGNUL and District & Sessions Court, Patiala, g filed ry first appeal, under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act, which was ty, vide order dated 18.02.2020, with “Furthermore, the appellant has submitted that, application to the concerned public authority as per law. To this point, this authority is of view that the queries under consideration prima facie clearly provides that the matter solely relates to the Rajiv Gandhi National parate public authority an appellant being an advocate presumed to have knowledge of proper authority and when a person has knowledge of proper public authority and still he files an application under RTI Act, s not bound to I application and the same has held by Hon’ble “Case No. Accordingly, it is held that reply given by Ld. PIO on learned by filing statutory second appeal, which holding appears to be a direct and live nexus between the administrative functions performed by the staff of the Hon’ble High Punjab and Haryana for the Hon’ble Chief Justice in his official wever, the PIOs Patiala, AMIT KUMAR 2025.08.23 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-13040 denied possessing High Court was passed upon the petitioner respondent No.2, and provide the requisite information. 5. learned Commission 6. counsel for the parties. 7. of the Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law Punjab Act the same is extracted hereinafter 13040-2022 -4- denied possessing the information sought for High Court must be seized of the information. Resultantly, a direction passed upon the petitioner to re respondent No.2, and provide the requisite information. Assailing the validity of the abovesaid order passed by the learned Commission, the instant writ petition has been filed. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. To decide the instant lis, it is expedient to refer to ajiv Gandhi National University of Law Punjab Act the same is extracted hereinafter:- “8. The Chancellor: (1) The Chief Justice of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana will be the Chancellor of the University and in his absence, the acting Chief Justice of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana the functions of the Chancellor. (2) The Chancellor, in the absence of the Visitor, shall preside over the convocations of the University and meetings of the General Council. (3) The Chancellor may cause an inspection, to be made by such person or persons as he may direct, of the University, its buildings, libraries and equipments and of any institution maintained by the University, and also of the examinations, teaching and other work conducted or done by the University and cause an inquir the like manner in respect of any matter connected with the administration and finances of the University. the information sought for, therefore, the petitioner- the information. Resultantly, a direction to re-examine the application of respondent No.2, and provide the requisite information. Assailing the validity of the abovesaid order passed by the instant writ petition has been filed. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned , it is expedient to refer to Section 8 ajiv Gandhi National University of Law Punjab Act, 2006, and 8. The Chancellor: (1) The Chief Justice of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana will be the Chancellor of the University and in his absence, the acting Chief Justice of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana shall discharge the functions of the Chancellor. (2) The Chancellor, in the absence of the Visitor, shall preside over the convocations of the University and meetings of the General Council. (3) The Chancellor may cause an inspection, to be made erson or persons as he may direct, of the University, its buildings, libraries and equipments and of any institution maintained by the University, and also of the examinations, teaching and other work conducted or done by the University and cause an inquiry to be made in the like manner in respect of any matter connected with the administration and finances of the University. - the information. Resultantly, a direction examine the application of Assailing the validity of the abovesaid order passed by the This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned Section 8 and 8. The Chancellor: (1) The Chief Justice of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana will be the Chancellor of the University and in his absence, the acting Chief Justice shall discharge (2) The Chancellor, in the absence of the Visitor, shall preside over the convocations of the University and (3) The Chancellor may cause an inspection, to be made erson or persons as he may direct, of the University, its buildings, libraries and equipments and of any institution maintained by the University, and also of the examinations, teaching and other work conducted or y to be made in the like manner in respect of any matter connected with AMIT KUMAR 2025.08.23 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-13040 8. functions Hon’ble the that of the functions to be performed by Article 216 of the Constitution of India. scheme, it is evident that functioning of the University concerned, which, as demonstrated above, is a separate independent p petitioner has rightly rejected the application, thereby requisite information is not 9. direct nexus between RGNUL, except that Hon’ble the Chief Justice happens to be the 13040-2022 -5- (4) The Chancellor may offer such advice to the University, as he may deem appropriate with reference to the result of such inspecti (5) The University shall communicate to the Chancellor, the action taken or proposed to be taken on such advice. (6) In case of differences among the authorities or officers of the University on any matter, which cannot be otherwise resolved, the decision of the Chancellor shall be final. (7) The Chancellor may invite a person or persons of eminence in law and legal education to advise the University in relation to the affairs of the University as and when he deems it necessary A perusal of the abovesaid provision makes it clear that the discharged by Hon’ble the Chief Justice the Chancellor of the University that of the functions to be performed by Hon’ble Article 216 of the Constitution of India. Further, i scheme, it is evident that the High Court exercises no role in the functioning of the University concerned, which, as demonstrated above, is a separate independent public authority. Therefore, the PIO of the petitioner has rightly rejected the application, thereby requisite information is not held by/under At this juncture, it is apt to put on record that direct nexus between the two Institutions, i.e. the High Court and the RGNUL, except that Hon’ble the Chief Justice happens to be the (4) The Chancellor may offer such advice to the University, as he may deem appropriate with reference to the result of such inspection or inquiry. (5) The University shall communicate to the Chancellor, the action taken or proposed to be taken on such advice. (6) In case of differences among the authorities or officers of the University on any matter, which cannot be d, the decision of the Chancellor shall be (7) The Chancellor may invite a person or persons of eminence in law and legal education to advise the University in relation to the affairs of the University as and when he deems it necessary.” rusal of the abovesaid provision makes it clear that the he Chief Justice in the capacity of Chancellor of the University concerned, are independent to Hon’ble the Chief Justice, under Further, in view of the statutory High Court exercises no role in the functioning of the University concerned, which, as demonstrated above, ublic authority. Therefore, the PIO of the petitioner has rightly rejected the application, thereby, observing that the held by/under his control. At this juncture, it is apt to put on record that there is no two Institutions, i.e. the High Court and the RGNUL, except that Hon’ble the Chief Justice happens to be the ex (4) The Chancellor may offer such advice to the University, as he may deem appropriate with reference to (5) The University shall communicate to the Chancellor, the action taken or proposed to be taken on such advice. (6) In case of differences among the authorities or officers of the University on any matter, which cannot be d, the decision of the Chancellor shall be (7) The Chancellor may invite a person or persons of eminence in law and legal education to advise the University in relation to the affairs of the University as rusal of the abovesaid provision makes it clear that the in the capacity of independent to Justice, under n view of the statutory High Court exercises no role in the functioning of the University concerned, which, as demonstrated above, ublic authority. Therefore, the PIO of the observing that the there is no two Institutions, i.e. the High Court and the ex AMIT KUMAR 2025.08.23 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-13040 officio Chancellor of the University. Commission erred in administrative functions performed by the staff of the two Bodies. Therefore, the PIO of this Court, by any stretch of imagination, cannot be asked either to supply the information, which relates to the RGNUL or ex respondent No.2 10. (Annexure P Resultantly 11. makes it clear pertaining concerned, under 21.08.202 Ak Sharma 13040-2022 -6- Chancellor of the University. In such circumstances Commission erred in observing that there is a administrative functions performed by the staff of the two Bodies. Therefore, the PIO of this Court, by any stretch of imagination, cannot be asked either to supply the information, which relates to the RGNUL or extract the same therefrom and thereafter, transmit to respondent No.2 In view of the abovesaid observations, (Annexure P-6), indeed, requires interference, and Resultantly, the petition stands allowed. However, before parting with the judgment, makes it clear that if respondent No.2 ing to the RGNUL, he shall be at liberty to approach the PIO concerned, under the RTI Act. .2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable In such circumstances, the learned there is a nexus between the administrative functions performed by the staff of the two independent Bodies. Therefore, the PIO of this Court, by any stretch of imagination, cannot be asked either to supply the information, which relates to the tract the same therefrom and thereafter, transmit to observations, the impugned order 6), indeed, requires interference, and the same is set aside. before parting with the judgment, this Court still requires any information he shall be at liberty to approach the PIO (KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No learned nexus between the independent Bodies. Therefore, the PIO of this Court, by any stretch of imagination, cannot be asked either to supply the information, which relates to the tract the same therefrom and thereafter, transmit to the impugned order the same is set aside. this Court any information he shall be at liberty to approach the PIO AMIT KUMAR 2025.08.23 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document