Allowed

R S Gupta v. Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Delhi HC14 Dec 2016W.P.(C)/8156/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought recall of an order disposing of his appeal due to absence caused by a traffic accident. Supreme Court set aside the impugned order passed without hearing him and restored the matter to the Commission for a fresh hearing with due notice to parties. Merits of the original appeal not examined.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; appeal restored to Central Information Commission for hearing with parties summoned.

R S Gupta Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~24

¶2

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Judgment delivered on: 14.12.2016

¶4

W.P.(C) 8156/2016 R S GUPTA

¶5

..... Petitioner

¶6

versus

¶7

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents

¶8

Advocates who appeared in this case:

¶9

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Roy, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Saurabh Chadda, Adv. with Mr. Ajay Kumar, LA, DOE

¶10

CORAM:HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT

¶11

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

¶12

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 01.08.2016. It is contended that the appeal of the petitioner has been disposed of by the impugned order in the absence of the petitioner.

¶13

It is contended that the appeal of the petitioner was listed on 29.07.2016. On the morning of 29.07.2016, the petitioner who was travelling by his motorcycle met with a road traffic accident. Because of heavy rain on the previous night, the motorbike of the petitioner slipped and the petitioner sustained injuries on his shoulder. The petitioner was advised bed rest.

¶14

W.P.(C) No.8156/2016

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

It is contended that the petitioner could not appear before the Commission on account of the fact that he met with the accident while he was on his way to attend the hearing. The petitioner thereafter approached the Commission for recall of the order. However, the request was not acceded to. The petitioner has also annexed a copy of the medical certificate.

¶17

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the impugned order is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. However, with regard to the absence of the petitioner from the hearing on 29.07.2016, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the same is a matter of record and he would not be in a position to controvert the contention of the petitioner.

¶18

The impugned order dated 01.08.2016 consequent upon hearing on 29.07.2016, no doubt is a detailed order, however, the same has been passed without hearing the petitioner who was the appellant.

¶19

The petitioner has explained the reasons for his absence from the hearing on 29.07.2016. Without commenting on merits of the order, it is deemed appropriate that the petitioner be given an opportunity of hearing before the Commission.

¶20

In view of the above, the impugned order dated 01.08.2016 passed consequent to the hearing on 29.07.2016 is set aside. The appeal is restored to its original number on the file of Central Information Commission. The Commission is directed to list the

¶21

W.P.(C) No.8156/2016

¶22

Page 2 of 3

¶23

matter for hearing on a date appropriate to the Commission, with due intimate the parties, and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law.

¶24

It is clarified that this Court has not examined the merits of the impugned order and the said order has been set aside solely on the ground that the petitioner could not attend the hearing on 29.07.2016 on account of his accident and the order has been passed in his absence.

¶25

The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. No order as to
costs.
10. Copy of the order be given dasti under signature of the Court
Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
DECEMBER 14, 2016
‘ rs’

¶26

W.P.(C) No.8156/2016

¶27

Page 3 of 3

R S Gupta v. Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R S Gupta v. Govt of NCT of Delhi and 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

Ram Kala and Ors. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi

Trilochan Kaur Vs Delhi Development Authority and Anr.

N C Jindal Public School Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Jamia Cooperative Bank Limited & Anr. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Bd Sharma Vs Union of India & Ors.

Kamleshwar Pratap Vs Registrar Cooperative Societie

Deepak Gupta Vs Registrar Cooperative Societie

Kapil Jain & Ors. Vs Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.

Bina P Modi Vs Union of India

R K Jain Vs Union of India and Anr.

Mukesh Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Adishakti Digital Network and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

M/S Yug Ct Cable Vs Union of India and Ors.

Rahul Dutta Vs Bar Council of Delhi & Anr.