Quashed

Ashutosh Gautam v. Central Information Commission and Ors.

Delhi HC22 Apr 2019W.P.(C)/7449/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order addresses a writ petition challenging a Central Information Commission dismissal of an RTI complaint for violating procedural norms. The appellant cited a returnability clause under Section 18(1) of the RTI Act by which the Court directed CIC to decide in absence of petitioner, findings or adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Central Information Commission to decide the petitioner's complaint under Section 18(1) of the RTI Act on merits within three months after giving 15 days notice.

Ashutosh Gautam Vs Central Information Commission and Ors. — RTI and Transparency | Delhi HC (2019)

¶1

$~39

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 7449/2015 ASHUTOSH GAUTAM

¶4

..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Mritunjay Kumar Singh, and Ms. Ranjana Tiwary, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION AND ORS.

¶7

..... Respondent Through: Mr. Satish Aggarwal, Sr. St. Counsel with Mr. Vineet Sharma, Adv. for R2 to R5

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO O R D E R % 22.04.2019

¶9

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the

¶10

following prayers:

¶11

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

¶12

(a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the Order dated 06.01.2015 issued by respondent No.1 under the Act;

¶13

(b) Issue an appropriate writ, Order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.1 to decide

¶14

the Complaint of Petitioner as on its merits as per provisions of RTI Act;

¶15

(c) Issue an appropriate writ, Order or direction to the Govt. of India through Revenue Secretary to initiate Departmental Inquiry against all the errant officers responsible for deliberate delay in providing the desired pieces of information within the time limit and / or for denying the same.

¶16

(d) Pass any other or further order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

¶17

The challenge in the writ petition is to the order dated January 06, 2015 whereby the Commission has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner herein under Section 18(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in his absence. I note that despite notice, the petitioner was neither present nor represented and thus the Commission has dismissed the complaint without any adjudication on merits.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner justifies his absence by stating that the notice of hearing for January 06, 2015 was issued by the CIC; and in terms thereof even in the absence of the petitioner, the CIC was required to hear and decide the petition on the basis of the available record. In other words, it is his submission that even in his absence, the Commission was

¶19

required to decide the complaint on merits.

¶20

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 to 5 justifies the order passed by the CIC. Having seen the impugned order and also notice of hearing, it is clear that the CIC has not gone into the merits of the complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 18(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

¶21

If that be so, appropriate for the Commission is to decide the complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 18(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in accordance with law within a period of three months from today. The Commission shall inform the petitioner and the respondents the date and time when the petitioner / respondents as well as their representative may appear before it for hearing, at least 15 days in advance.

¶22

With the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶23

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

¶24

APRIL 22, 2019 /aky

Ashutosh Gautam v. Central Information Commission and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashutosh Gautam v. Central Information Commission and 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

Ashwath Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Government of NCT of Delhi

Shri Dharampal Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

M/S National Industrial Corporation (P) Ltd. Vs the Excise Commissioner Delhi & Anr.

Harvansh Chawla Vs Pr. Cit (CENTRAL-1), Delhi & Anr.

Satish Kumar & Ors. Vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

Bhuvanesh Vyas Vs I.G.N.O.U.

Sundeep Bhutoria Vs Indian Federation of United Nations Association & Ors.

Reliance Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bureau of Pharma Public Sector Undertakings of India and Anr.

Samir Sangal Vs Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Anr.

Kapil Tanwar Vs Delhi Jal Board and Anr.

Lajinder Singh Vs S.D.M.C and Anr.

M/S Mas Hospitality and Anr. Vs Monitoring Committee and Anr.

Dibyendu Bidyanta Vs Central Information Commission and Anr.

Pankaj Mohan Associates Vs Union of India and Ors.