Allowed

Rayka Mihir Gandabhai v. Union Public Service Commission and Anr.

Delhi HC11 Mar 2019W.P.(C)/2385/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought directions to obtain certified copies of examination answer sheets from UPSC. The Court, noting a pending appeal under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act, directed the CIC to dispose of the appeal within two months and allowed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Direction to CIC to dispose of the petitioner's appeal within two months; Petition allowed subject to exceptions.

Rayka Mihir Gandabhai Vs Union Public Service Commission… — RTI and Transparency | Delhi HC (2019)

¶1

$~45

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 2385/2019

¶4

RAYKA MIHIR GANDABHAI

¶5

..... Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr Satvik Varma, Mr Mohit Mudgal, Ms Sanya Sud, Mr Nipun Gautam and Mr Tanveer Oberoi, Advocates.

¶7

versus

¶8

UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr Naresh Kaushik and Mr Lakshay Juneja, Advocates for R-1.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU O R D E R % 11.03.2019

¶10

CM No.11094/2019

¶11

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶12

W.P.(C) 2385/2019

¶13

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

¶14

“(a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing Respondent No.1 to furnish certified copies of the answer sheets of the Petitioner (Roll No.154207) for the Main examination conducted in the year 2011; and/or

¶15

(b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing Respondent No.2 to expeditiously decide Diary No.140582 within a period of fourteen days or any such time period as deemed appropriate by this

¶16

Hon’ble Court.”

¶17

Mr Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner’s appeal under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, against an order dated 08.05.2018 passed by the First Appellate Authority of respondent no.1 (UPSC), is pending before the Central Information Commission (CIC). He further submits that in this case, there are special circumstances that entitle the petitioner to disclosure of the information as sought by him; the petitioner only seeks an opportunity to urge the same before the CIC. Mr Kaushik, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, has no objection if a direction is issued to the CIC to dispose of the petitioner’s appeal in accordance with law within a period of two months from today. It is, accordingly, so directed.

¶18

The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶19

Order dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

¶20

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

¶21

MARCH 11, 2019 MK

Rayka Mihir Gandabhai v. Union Public Service Commission and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rayka Mihir Gandabhai v. Union Public Service Commission 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

G.L Sansi Ex. Constable Vs Union of India and Ors.

Dalvinder Singh Sodhi Vs Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Ors.

Bimla Sodhi Vs Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Ors.

Sunil Kumar Singhal Vs Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Ors.

Sanjeev Ruhil and Anr. Vs Union of India and Anr.

Dr. A.K. Bhardwaj Vs the Secretary, Government of India & Ors.

Chhaya Gaur Vs Punjab National Bank

Joginder Singh Vs Northern Railways & Ors.

Tejinder Kaur Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Mohd Javed and Anr. Vs Union of India and Anr.

Advaith Biofuels Limited Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sanjeev Ramniwas Goyal Vs National Internet Exchange of India and Anr.

M/S Moets Catering Services through Its Sole Proprietor Mr. Sandeep Bindra Vs Dr. Ambedkar International Center and Anr.

Ram Shankar and Ors. Vs Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors.