Disposed

Dipak Bhattacharyya v. Union of India and Anr.

Delhi HC16 Feb 2018W.P.(C)/1431/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition seeking assignment as an expert evaluator after an RTI appeal was rejected. Court observed that statutory second appeal remedy existed and substantive issues were not urged, making entitainment apposite.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner advised to approach the CIC (if advised). Substantive issues to be raised in appropriate proceedings.

Dipak Bhattacharyya Vs Union of India and Anr. — RTI and Transparency | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~38

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 1431/2018

¶4

DIPAK BHATTACHARYYA ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through Mr Soumyajit Pani, Mr Chittaranjan Singh, Mr Bhagwat Prasad, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

..... Respondents Through Mr Jasmeet Singh, CGSC with Mr Srivats Kaushal and Mr Vinod Tiwari, Mr Reshesh Mani Tripathi, Advocates for UOI.

¶8

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU O R D E R

¶10

% 16.02.2018

¶11

CM 5904/2018

¶12

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶13

The application is disposed of.

¶14

W.P.(C) 1431/2018

¶15

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia , praying as under:-

¶16

“(a) Call for the records as regard to the Appointment of the Petitioners as well as the list of the incumbents empanelled as Expert Volunteer/evaluator after the appointment of the Petitioner as the details of the work assigned to them.

¶17

(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.2 to assign the work to the petitioner who has been selected and was duly empanelled as Expert Volunteer/evaluator.

¶18

¶19

Although, the petitioner is empanelled as an Expert Volunteer/evaluator with respondent no.2 (National Board of Accreditation) (NBA), the petitioner has not been provided any assignment. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereafter ‘the RTI Act’) seeking certain information with regard to allocation of work/assignment. The petitioner claims that the information sought by him was not provided to him in entirety.

¶20

Aggrieved by the denial of information, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The FAA rejected the petitioner’s appeal by an order dated 08.08.2017.

¶21

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had requested the FAA to afford the petitioner an opportunity to be heard; however, the same was not granted.

¶22

It is relevant to note that apart from raising the grievance as regard to the manner in which the petitioner’s appeal has been dealt with by the FAA, no further grounds have been urged.

¶23

Undisputedly, the petitioner has a statutory remedy by way of a second appeal under Section 19 (3) of the Act. In view of the same, this Court does not consider it apposite to entertain the present appeal leaving it open for the petitioner to approach the CIC if the petitioner is so advised.

¶24

It is noted that there are several other disputes raised in the petition; particularly, with regard to the substantive plea regarding allocation of work. Since the said issues have not been urged, this Court considers it apposite to observed that the petitioner would not be precluded from raising the same in appropriate proceedings.

¶25

The petition is disposed of.

¶26

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

¶27

FEBRUARY 16, 2018 pkv

Dipak Bhattacharyya v. Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dipak Bhattacharyya v. Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

New Delhi Municipal Council Vs G S Thind

Shaleen Kumar Goel & Anr. Vs the Maintenance Tribunal & Ors.

Amod Kumar Vs Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited (Tpddl)

Vinod Kumar Shah Vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation and Ors.

Public Information Officer Tihar Jail Vs Om Prakash Gandhi and Anr.

Ranjan Pandey Vs Union of India and Ors.

Investor Protection Group and Anr. Vs Security Exchange Board of India and Anr.

Natwar Lal Vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

Shaleen Kumar Goel & Anr. Vs the Maintenance Tribunal & Ors.

Late K L Hora Memorial Educational Society (Regd.) Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation

Apar Industries Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.

Yogesh Mahajan Vs Chief Administrative Officer (C.a.O.) (Actg.), Aiims & Ors.

Sphaera Pharma, Pte. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Union of India and Anr.

Kunal Khatri Vs Union of India and Ors.