Dismissed

Ramesh Chandra Yadav v. Union of India and 2 Others

Allahabad HC11 Jul 2024WPIL/1031/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a PIL seeking directions to provide details of funds obtained from DFID and conduct an enquiry, noting that similar relief was already granted by the Central Information Commissioner. The Court held that a PIL cannot be filed for the execution of a CIC order and directed the petitioner to take appropriate action in accordance with law for non-compliance.

What the court decided

AI extract

Ramesh Chandra Yadav vs Union of India and 2 Others — RTI and Transparency | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:143400-DB

¶2

Chief Justice's Court

¶3

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1031 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Ramesh Chandra Yadav Respondent :- Union Of India And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anay Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Vivek Kumar Singh,

¶5

Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶6

This petition in the nature of public interest litigation has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to provide complete details of 20 million Pound obtained by respondents from DFID, U.K. to the satisfaction of this Court and further directions have been sought to respondent no. 1 to conduct an enquiry in the expenditure of grant-in-aid of 20 million Pound by the respondent nos. 2 & 3 and appropriate action may be taken against the authority/persons found guilty in the enquiry so conducted.

¶7

A perusal of the writ petition indicates that petitioner has made application under the Right to Information Act seeking the same information and ultimately, the Central Information Commissioner vide his order dated 23.12.2022 has directed the respondents to provide information regarding allocation and utilization of funds and report submitted to the DFID regarding expenditure within three weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

¶8

Submissions have been made that despite passing of the order dated 23.12.2022, the same has not been complied with forcing the petitioner to file the present public interest litigation.

¶9

Filing of a Public Interest Litigation for the purpose of execution of the order passed by the CIC dated 23.12.2022 cannot be countenanced.

¶10

Once the order by the competent authority has been passed and the same purportedly has not been complied with by the respondents, the petitioner is required to take action in accordance with law qua non-compliance of the directions issued by the said authority.

¶11

Filing of the Public Interest Litigation seeking similar relief, which has already been granted by the competent authority, cannot be permitted.

¶12

Consequently, the petition is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to take appropriate action in accordance with law.

¶13

Order Date :- 4.9.2024 nd/piyush

¶14

(Vikas Budhwar, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)

¶15

Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ramesh Chandra Yadav v. Union of India and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ramesh Chandra Yadav v. Union of India and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt Romi Bajpai vs Shivank Bajpai

Lokesh Kumar Khurana vs State of Up and 4 Others

Qaipl Pvt. Ltd. vs Jaypee Infratech Ltd.

Jugnu Chaubey vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Sanjay Kumar vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Hemraj vs State of U.P. and 4 Others