Single judge High Court of Delhi dismissed a writ petition challenging the Central Information Commission's order which declined to adjudicate inconsistency in RTI responses, holding no error requiring interference.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$-46
\ I
CHANDAN KUMAR CHANDANAND ORS ....' Petitioners Through: Petitioner No.l inperson.
versus
t"
h
ANUP KUMAR AGGARWAL AND ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr Rajiv Bansal, Adv. forPt.DeenDayal Institute for Physically Handicapped.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAIENDLAW
ORDER oh 09.09.2011
.|
n'.P.(C) 65gt/201 t Pogc I oJ 2
("
.-
/F.
imposing costs on petitioners.
e
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW.J
SEPTEMBER 09,2011 mb..
,vP.(c) 6s9t,20t r
Page 2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether prima facie inconsistency in the CIC's finding warrants interference in its order.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
CHANDAN KUMAR CHANDAN
ANUP KUMAR AGGARWAL
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
