Petitioner sought RTI disclosure from Civil Supply Commissioner. Neither respondent supplied information nor framed rules, leading to CIC order. High Court directed respondents to comply with CIC order.
Directions issued to respondents to comply with the order of the Central Information Commission dated 13.02.2015.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~2
SURENDER TANEJA ..... Petitioner
Through Petitioner in person. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Through Mr Jasmeet Singh, CGSC and Mr Srivats Kaushal, Advocates for UOI/R1. Mr Prateek Chadha, Advocate for R2-4.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU O R D E R % 23.08.2018
under:-
“i) It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an appropriate Writ, Order, direction, directing the Respondents No. 3 to 6 to deliver/provide/supply the requisite information sought by Petitioner in the stipulated period as the RTI ACT 2005.
ii) Pass an appropriate Writ, Order, direction, directing the respondent No.2 to remain vigilant about its department so that they never cause inconvenience to the general public at large as well as individual who is seeking necessary information as per RTI Act.
iii) Pass an appropriate Writ, Order, direction, directing the respondent No. 1 to make necessary amendment in the RTI Act for imposing penalty/fine as well as
imprisonment also for not supplying the requisite information sought by the general public or individual as per the RTI Act.”
“(a) All the photocopies of the FPS shops’ sale register, billing register, names of the card holders/ customers regd. with the shops (mentioned in Annexure-A) and the receipts for the ration issued to the consumers/ customers for the period w.e.f. “1-4-2013 to 30-4-2013 and 1-4-2013 to 30-4-2013. (b) The number of cards which were transferred to other circle from circle no. 19 and how many were cancelled in circle no.19 during 1-1-2011 to 2013. Please disclose their names, card No. and address.”
“Having heard the submission and perusal of records, the commission directs the respondent officer to place copy of the sale register and stock register regularly on official website so that anybody could note it. The commission also directs the PIO that, if the information sought by the appellant does not pertain to C-19, Sadar Bazar, then transfer the RTI application to the concerned circle and provide the information to the appellant within 20 days of date of receipt of this order.”
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
AUGUST 23, 2018/ pkv
1 issue framed by the court
Whether directions are required to be issued to the respondents for complying with the orders passed by the Central Information Commission dated 13.02.2015.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SURENDER TANEJA
UNION OF INDIA
VIBHU BAKHRU
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
