Remanded

Power Finance Corporation Ltd. v. Sushma Singh & Ors.

Delhi HC14 Jan 2016W.P.(C)/5251/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court set aside an order of the Central Information Commissioner for violating principles of natural justice as it was based on two non-compliance petitions without notice on the second. The matter was remanded to the CIC with directions to issue notice and evolve proper filing procedures.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remanded to CIC with directions to issue notice to the petitioner regarding the second non-compliance petition and evolve proper filing procedures.

Power Finance Corporation Ltd. Vs Sushma Singh & Ors. — RTI and Transparency | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

#12

¶2

¶3

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶4

- W.P.(C) 5251/2014 & CM APPL. 10427/2014

¶5

POWER FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Jagdeep Kishore, Advocate versus SUSHMA SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondents Through Dr. L.C. Singhi, Advocate for R-1 and 2.

¶6

% Date of Decision: 14^th January, 2016

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

¶8

J U D G M E N T

¶9

MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)

¶10

Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 15^th May, 2014 passed by the Chief Information Commissioner [for short “CIC”].

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the CIC in noncompliance petition dated 19^th November, 2013 arising out of the order dated 27^th May, 2013 has erred in directing inspection of records which was not originally ordered in the aforesaid order. He also submits that the CIC has directed the petitioner to disclose the documents which are in the

¶12

Page 1 of 2

¶13

W.P.(C) 5251/2014

¶14

exclusive power and possession of another authority, namely, GRIDCO.

¶15

On the other hand, respondent no. 3 who is personally present in Court states that he had filed two non-compliance petitions dated 19^th November, 2013 and 14^th March, 2014 respectively and the impugned order arises from the proceedings in the said two petitions.

¶16

A perusal of the file reveals that the petitioner was only issued notice with regard to the non-compliance petition dated 19^th November, 2013. Since the impugned order is based on allegations in both the non-compliance petitions dated 19^th November, 2013 and 14^th March, 2014, this Court is of the opinion that there has been violation of principles of natural justice. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the CIC.

¶17

However, before deciding the matter, CIC is directed to give notice of the second non-compliance petition dated 14^th March, 2014 to the petitioner. It is clarified that the aforesaid remand order is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of all the parties.

¶18

Registry of the Central Information Commission is directed to evolve a procedure by virtue of which applications for non-compliance of CIC orders are numbered and different applications are placed in separate files so that this sort of confusion does not arise in future.

¶19

With the aforesaid directions and observations, present writ petition and application stand disposed of.

¶20

MANMOHAN, J

¶21

JANUARY 14, 2016 rn

¶22

Page 2 of 2

¶23

W.P.(C) 5251/2014

Power Finance Corporation Ltd. v. Sushma Singh & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Power Finance Corporation Ltd. v. Sushma Singh & Ors.

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

M/S Phoenix Surgicals & Ors. Vs the Drug Controller of Delhi & Ors.

Suresh Kumar Arora & Ors. Vs the Registrar Co-Op. Societies & Ors.

M/S Srj Infratech Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs Director Directorate of Enforcement and Ors.

Tulinder Katoch Vs Union of India & Ors.

Krishna Nand Verma Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. & Anr.

Sushil Kumar Taparia Vs the State of Delhi & Ors.

Thukral Steel Corporation through Its Proprietor Daman Thukral Vs Commissioner Value Added Tax & Anr.

Sunita Arora Vs Delhi University & Ors.

M/S Srj Infratech Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs Director Directorate of Enforcement and Ors.

Tulinder Katoch Vs Union of India & Ors.

Crop Care Federation of India and Anr. Vs UOI and Ors.

Prashant Chauhan Vs Tribunal (Under Maintenance & Welfare of the Parents & Senior Citizens Act, 2007) (Central District

Arihant Kumar Vardhan Vs Vice Chancellor, Jawaharlal Nehru University & Ors.

M/S Palak Constuction Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.