Dismissed

Prahlad Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC20 May 2016W.P.(C)/4599/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, whose public services were terminated over 18 years ago, filed a writ petition to enforce a 2013 CIC order refusing RTI information. The Court held that it could not exercise its writ jurisdiction due to the excessive delay, finding the excuse for delay unconvincing and dismissing the petition on the ground of laches. The CM application for exemption was separately allowed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Prahlad Singh Vs Union of India & Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

7 $~

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 4599/2016

¶4

PRAHLAD SINGH ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Raghav Awasthi, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Amrit Pal Singh, Advocate with Mr. Nirvikar Verma, Advocate.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

¶9

O R D E R % 20.05.2016

¶10

CM Appl. 19122/2016 (exemption) in W.P.(C) 4599/2016

¶11

Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

¶12

W.P.(C) 4599/2016

¶13

Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 27^th August, 2013 whereby the Central Information Commission (for short ‘CIC’) has refused to grant information sought by the petitioner on the ground that CRPF is an exempt organisation listed under Schedule II of the Right to Information Act (for short ‘RTI Act’) and is thus not amenable to any provisions contained under the RTI Act by virtue of Section 24 of the RTI Act.

¶14

It is also stated that the information sought does not pertain to violation of human rights. The relevant portion of the impugned order is

¶15

reproduced hereinbelow:-

¶16

“2. It is to be noted that the Respondent C.R.P.F. is an exempted organization listed under Schedule II of the RTI Act and therefore, is not amenable to any provision contained in the RTI Act by virtue of Section 24 of the RTI Act. Furthermore, the information sought by the Appellant does not pertain to any violation of human rights and allegation of corruption, and therefore, does not fall under Proviso (I) to Section 24 of the RTI Act.

¶17

3. It has to be appreciated that „allegation of corruption‟ does not mean mere conjectures and surmises. Allegations ought to be supported by cogent and sound evidence which can lead the Commission to frame a prima facie view about corrupt or malpractices being involved in any given case. Such element is clearly missing in this second appeal as no evidence or material has been placed by the Appellant before the Commission so as to establish prima facie case of corruption. Even anything to reasonably support the violation of human right is also absent in the appeal preferred by the appellant before the Commission.”

¶18

Learned counsel for petitioner invokes the mercy jurisdiction of this Court.

¶19

However, on a perusal of the paper book, this Court finds that the petitioner’s services had been terminated on 11^th March, 1998 and the petitioner is essentially seeking information by way of a RTI application dated 01^st December, 2012 with intent to challenge his termination order.

¶20

Since the termination order had been passed more than eighteen years ago, this Court refuses to exercise its writ jurisdiction on the ground of laches.

¶21

At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner stats that the delay has occurred because the earlier counsel of petitioner had misplaced the

¶22

petitioner’s files.

¶23

This Court finds it extremely difficult to believe ‘this excuse’ because if the lawyer had not taken any action for so many years, the petitioner would have pursued with the authorities forthwith and not filed a RTI application in the year 2012.

¶24

With the aforesaid observation, present writ petition is dismissed.

¶25

MANMOHAN, J

¶26

MAY 20, 2016 js

Prahlad Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Prahlad Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tejas Networks Ltd.& Anr. Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors.

M/S Amit Brothers Vs Union of India & Ors.

Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. Vs Pankaj Narula

Narender Kumar Vs Transport Department & Ors.

Khushboo Aggarwal & Anr. Vs Telecom Regulatory Authority of India & Anr.

Vipin Kumar Gupta Vs Union of India & Ors.

Amit Kumar Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr.

Umesh Chandra Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.

M/S Amit Brothers Vs Union of India & Ors.

Dr. Kaushik Roy Vs Jawaharlal Nehru University & Anr.

Shagun & Anr. Vs Delhi Public School & Anr.

Jay Iron and Steels Ltd. Vs Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency & Anr.

Krishna Kalra and Anr. Vs Public Grievance Commission, Govt. of NCT Delhi

Ashish Kumar Dwivedi Vs Central Board of Film Certification