Allowed

Ajay Gautam v. Pio Delhi Waqf Board and Anr.

Delhi HC19 Dec 2016W.P.(C)/11830/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging an order of the Central Information Commission based on a prior decision in a different RTI application. The Court held that res judicata does not apply as the current application concerns different properties, setting aside the CIC order and remitting the appeal for fresh adjudication.

What did the court decide?

The order of the CIC dated 14.09.2016 is set aside, the appeal is remitted to the CIC to be decided afresh on merits.

Ajay Gautam Vs Pio Delhi Waqf Board and Anr. — RTI and Transparency | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~57

¶2

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Judgment delivered on: 19.12.2016

¶4

W.P.(C) 11830/2016

¶5

AJAY GAUTAM ..... Petitioner
versus
PIO DELHI WAQF BOARD AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Petitioner in person.
For the Respondent : Hashmat Nabi, Advocate for respondent No.1.
CORAM:-
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
19.12.2016
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

¶6

The petitioner impugns order dated 14.09.2016, passed by the Central Information Commission, whereby, the case of the petitioner has been decided in terms of order dated 29.07.2016 in an earlier decided case No.CIC/SA/A/2016/001672.

¶7

The petitioner, who appears in person, submits that the said case, on the basis of which the impugned order has been passed, pertains to an RTI application with regard to the Mosque at Darya

¶8

WP(C) 11830/2016

¶9

Page 1 of 3

¶10

Ganj, whereas, the present appeal pertains to an RTI application with regard to (1) Madni Jasjid, (2) Masjid Amina Firdose, (3) Masjid Bhag Wali, (4) Masjid & Madarsa and (5) Masjid Chand Tara Wali New Sanjay Amar Colony, which is completely different from the other application which was filed by the petitioner.

¶11

It is contended that the two applications are completely different and different replies have been received. He submits that the decision in the case, referred to by the CIC, does not operate as res judicata or issue estoppel insofar as the present petition is concerned.

¶12

Issue notice. Notice is accepted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1. With the consent of learned counsel for the respondent No.1, the petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶13

Learned counsel for the respondent No.1, is not able to point out as to how the decision of the CIC in order dated 29.07.2016 in the case No.CIC/SA/A/2016/001672, copy of which has been produced by the learned counsel for the respondent, is applicable in the facts of the present case.

¶14

Since the two RTI applications seek information with regard to different properties, the decision in the above referred case would not operate as res judicata or issue estoppel.

¶15

In view of the above, the order of the CIC dated 14.09.2016 is

¶16

WP(C) 11830/2016

¶17

Page 2 of 3

¶18

clearly not sustainable. Accordingly, order dated 14.09.2016 is set aside. The appeal is restored to its original number. The appeal is remitted to the CIC to be decided afresh on merits. The parties shall appear before the CIC for directions on 18.01.2016.

¶19

It is clarified that this court has not examined the merits of the contention of either party. The CIC shall decide the appeal without being influenced by anything stated in this order.

¶20

The writ petition is allowed in the above terms.

¶21

Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
DECEMBER 19, 2016
‘st’

¶22

WP(C) 11830/2016

¶23

Page 3 of 3

Ajay Gautam v. Pio Delhi Waqf Board and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Gautam v. Pio Delhi Waqf Board and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Heritage India Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Value Added Tax

Bharat Enterprises Vs the Commissioner Value Added Tax

Sunint Enterprises Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Trade & Taxes & Anr.

M/S Stelco Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Trade & Taxes & Anr.

Shamsher Singh Vs Union of India & Anr.

Om Parkash Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Rajesh Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Pritam and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Prakash Heavy Metals Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Amit Mukhopadhyay Vs Delhi Police & Anr.

Ram Singh Vs District and Sessions Judge North West District Rohini Courts and Ors.

Meyer Organics Private Limited Vs Union of India and Anr.

M/S Jagsonpal Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs Drugs Controller General of India and Anr.

M/S Windlas Biotech Ltd. Vs Union of India & Anr.