Dismissed

Anoop Kumar Sharma v. a Fani Rao

Delhi HC14 Mar 2018CONT.CAS(C)/190/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a contempt petition alleging violation of an order under the RTI Act. The judge held that the direction was limited to providing marks, not inspection of the record, and inaccuracies in details like age did not constitute contempt, directing the petitioner to seek modification in the Writ Court.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition closed with liberty to apply to the Writ Court for modification of the order dated January 23, 2018.

Anoop Kumar Sharma Vs a Fani Rao — RTI and Transparency | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~55

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CONT.CAS(C) 190/2018, CM Nos. 9983/2018 & 9997/2018 ANOOP KUMAR SHARMA

..... Petitioner

Through: In person

versus

A FANI RAO

..... Respondent Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO O R D E R % 14.03.2018

¶9

CM No. 9997/2018

¶10

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶11

Application stands disposed of.

¶12

CONT.CAS(C) 190/2018 & CM Nos. 9983/2018

¶13

The present contempt petition has been filed alleging violation of order dated January 23, 2018. The order dated January 23, 2018 reads as under:-

¶14

“1. Mr J. J. Eshwara Prasad, who is a technical officer of the petitioner is present and he states that the marks awarded to the respondent against each question number can be provided to the respondent. However, it would take some time to access the said data. He states that about four weeks would be required to make a necessary programme to access the same.

¶15

2. Ms Biji Rajesh, the learned counsel appearing for the

¶16

petitioner also states that the information as sought for can be provided to the respondent within a period of six weeks.

¶17

3. In view of the above, the present petition and the pending application are disposed of by directing the petitioner to provide the same within a period of six weeks from today as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner.”

¶18

The petitioner, who appears in person primarily makes two submissions; (i) the respondent has not granted the petitioner the inspection of the record of which information was sought and; (ii) the information given at page 10 of the contempt petition is a hard copy of the marks and even the age depicted therein is incorrect.

¶19

On the submission made at serial no. (i) above, it was put to the petitioner that the direction was only to provide the marks secured by the petitioner against each of the question and as such there is no violation of order dated January 23, 2018; the petitioner draws my attention to his application filed under the RTI Act to contend that his request in the said application was for inspection of the record. If that be so, the remedy for the petitioner is to seek modification of order dated January 23, 2018. Insofar as the submission at (ii) above, that his age has been depicted incorrectly, cannot be a subject matter of contempt. I close this contempt petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Writ Court by way of an application for modification of order dated January 23, 2018, if so advised.

¶20

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

¶21

MARCH 14, 2018 /ak

Anoop Kumar Sharma v. a Fani Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anoop Kumar Sharma v. a Fani Rao

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

Raj Pal Vs Dr Pranjal J Hazarika

Mamta Gaur Vs P.K.Gupta, Commissioner, North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr.

Fahmida Anjum Vs Mr.a.Anbarasu Government of NCT of Delhi

Vinay Kumar Jain & Ors. Vs Bimal Julka, Secretary Ministry of I & B Ors.

Kuldeep J Choudhary Vs Rajiv Gauba & Anr.

Jetpur Somnath Tollways Limited Vs National Highways Authority of India & Anr.

M/S Aggarwal Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Malt & Leaf Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Vsk Sood & Anr. Vs Dr Puneet Kumar Goel & Ors.

D.A.V. College Trust and Management Society & Anr. Vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

Farzan Ahmed and Anr. Vs Govt of NCT and Ors.

Kuldeep Singh and Anr. Vs East Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Asha Devi and Anr. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Avake (Action for Vigilance and Knowledge for Empowerment) Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.

J P Dubey Vs Rajiv Jain