Mandamus Issued to University for Compliance with Final Orders of State Information Commission Regarding Revaluation Grievances.

The petitioner, a B.Sc. student at Pandit Ravishankar Shukla University, challenged the evaluation of his B.Sc. Part-II (2014) results after being declared unsuccessful in Botany Theory-II and Chemistry Theory-I

Discrepancies were noted when a re-revaluation increased his Botany marks from 9 to 25, but his grievance regarding Chemistry Theory-I remained unaddressed as the University allegedly altered marks in the wrong section of the answer book

On 09.10.2017, the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission (SIC) found that incorrect information was provided and directed the University to furnish complete details regarding the action taken on his representations

The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking compensation and a declaration that the University's inaction was arbitrary and negligent

1. Whether the respondent University is bound to comply with the directions issued by the State Information Commission regarding the disclosure of information on the petitioner’s evaluation grievance

2. Whether the continuous inaction of the University constitutes a recurring cause of action, preventing the dismissal of the petition on grounds of delay or laches

provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, regarding the finality of orders passed by the State Information Commission

principle of administrative accountability and the doctrine of "continuing wrong," which establishes that repeated failure to address a statutory or legal obligation creates a recurring cause of action, thereby mitigating the effects of delay or laches in filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

The Court observed that the petitioner had been diligently pursuing his grievance since 2014 through multiple forums, including statutory appeals

It noted that the State Information Commission’s order dated 09.10.2017, which directed the University to provide specific information seeking to resolve the revaluation dispute, had attained finality as it was never challenged by the University

The Court reasoned that once a statutory authority like the SIC issues a direction, the respondent is under a "statutory obligation" to comply

The Court chose not to delve into the merits of the marking/revaluation itself, focusing instead on the procedural failure of the University to provide the transparency mandated by the SIC

The petition was disposed of with a direction to the University to ensure full compliance with the SIC order dated 09.10.2017 by providing the petitioner with complete and specific information within 30 days

The Court reserved the petitioner's right to seek further legal remedies once the information is furnished, while explicitly stating it expressed no opinion on the merits of the evaluation itself