Times of India: Nagpur: Wednesday, June 27, 2018.
In a jolt to
Nagpur University’s deputy registrar Anil Hirekhan, the Nagpur bench of Bombay
High Court lifted its interim status quo on his plea opposing grant of
information to his bête noire Sunil Mishra under the Right to Information (RTI)
Act.
“It’s
informed that NU is resupplying the documents as per this court’s order of June
20. The petitioner can’t now be compelled to supply the documents. In this
situation, we don’t find any reason to continue the interim order. Order of
status quo stands vacated,” a division bench comprising justices Ravi Deshpande
and Murlidhar Giratkar held.
It was Mishra
who claimed that Hirekhan had submitted forged documents, including an
experience certificate of working with a private firm, which never existed. He
had accordingly complained to NU administration and joint director for higher
education in 2010, but no cognisance was taken.
He then
sought information under RTI Act from then registrar Ashok Gomashe regarding
Hirekhan’s documents submitted in NU prior to joining the job. Though latter
agreed to it, he was barred by NU top bosses. Mishra then filed an appeal with
the State Information Commission (SIC), which asked NU to provide his required
information within 15 days. When NU failed to comply with SIC’s orders, it
imposed a fine on NU officials and asked them to provide the information, which
Hirekhan had challenged in the HC.
The then
division bench comprising justices Bhushan Dharmadhikari and Swapna Joshi had
granted the status quo on SIC’s orders on January 9 last year. NU informed that
it had already provided required information to Mishra, which he denied.
On June 20,
the HC directed NU to again provide information sought by Mishra under the RTI
Act, which NU agreed, after which the status quo was lifted.
“Petitioner’s
counsel submits that he should be heard on the question of continuation of
status quo. We don’t find any reason to hear him, in view of the aforesaid
order. If he’s aggrieved, he has his own remedy to challenge the same. So far
as payment of penalty is concerned by the information officer, the same shall
remain stayed during the pendency of petition,” the judges said.
(With inputs
from Abhishek Pratap)