Dismissed

Neeraj Pant v. Public Work Department & Ors.

Delhi HC16 Feb 2018W.P.(C)/497/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Delhi dismissed a petition challenging the service of information under the RTI Act. The court noted the petitioner had accessed files and the issue was withdrawn by the petitioner with liberty for voluntary inspection of specific construction files.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty for voluntary inspection of specific construction files by the Executive Engineer.

Neeraj Pant Vs Public Work Department & Ors. — RTI and Transparency | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~44

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 497/2017 NEERAJ PANT ..... Petitioner Through: Mr Vishal K. Panwar, Advocate.

¶4

versus

¶5

PUBLIC WORK DEPARTMENT & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Ms Jyoti Dutt Sharma and Mr Iram Majid, Advocates with Mr Suresh Pal, EE (OP-I), PWD.

¶6

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

¶7

% 16.02.2018

¶8

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

¶9

under:-

¶10

“1. Pass the Direction to the Government Body i.e. Central Information Commission Respondent no 4 to Decide the Application under Section 20 of Right to Information Act as 2005, which is filed by the Petitioner.

¶11

Direct the Respondent no 1 & 2 to provide the information which was sought by the Petitioner in his application under the Right to Information Act 2005.

¶12

Direct the Respondents to compliance the order of Central Information Commission and provide the information in written, which was sought by the Petitioner under Right to Information Act.”

¶13

It is seen that the application dated 07.04.2014 made by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereafter ‘the Act’) is in

¶14

extremely wide and general terms inasmuch as the petitioner had requested for “ perusal of all documents and construction (Mandoli Jail and Mandoli Jail Housing Complex) ”. Admittedly, the petitioner has been granted inspection of the files on more than one occasion.

¶15

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has also handed over certain documents which indicate that large number of documents had been provided to the petitioner on 06.05.2015 and on17.06.2016.

¶16

In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition. However, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents states that certain files pertaining to construction of Mandoli Jail and construction of Vikas Bhawan-II are available with “Other Projects, Division-I”. She states that if the petitioner approaches Sh. Suresh Pal, Executive Engineer, the inspection of those files would be provided to him.

¶17

In view of the above, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks to withdraw the present petition with liberty to take inspection as voluntary by the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶18

The petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.

¶19

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

¶20

FEBRUARY 16, 2018 RK

Neeraj Pant v. Public Work Department & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeraj Pant v. Public Work Department & Ors.

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.

Rajeshwari Hariharan Vs Shamnad Basheer

M/S Pave Espania Vs Praveen Chandra

Rss Teading Company Vs Webtech Packagings (India)Pvt.Ltd

Kamal Jit Singh Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi through Commissioner of Excise

Amit Jain & Ors. Vs Kuljeet Singh Wadhwa & Anr.

Gpr Tubes and Tape Pvt. Ltd. Vs Hiranmaye Energy Ltd. Formerly Known as India Power Corporation (Haldia) Ltd.