Letters Patent Appeal dismissing a challenge to the dismissal of an RTI complaint. The court held the CPIO complied with the CCI order and the CCI did not commit any error in rejecting the complaint.
The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed for lack of substantive merit.
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.
$~24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 06.09.2019
SANJIV CHATURVEDI ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sudershan Goel, Mr. Govind Jee & Ms. Seema Chettri, Advs.
versus
CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Maninder Acharya, ASG with Mr. Amit Mahajan, CGSC; Mr. Dhruv Pande & Ms. Ikshita Singh, Advs.
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
JUDGMENT
D.N. PATEL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL)
LPA 577/2019 Page 1 of 8
LPA 577/2019 Page 2 of 8
per the order passed in the second appeal, respondent No.1 was directed to take a decision for left out information which are 1(b), 4, 5, 12 and 13 of the application, dated 7th August, 2017, of this appellant.
LPA 577/2019 Page 3 of 8
that despite the order passed by the second appellate authority under the Act, 2005, where the Chief Information Commissioner passed an order dated 16th October, 2018 (Annexure P-6), respondent No.1 has not supplied with the said pieces of information, which are at Sl. No.1(b), 4, 5, 12 and 13 of the application of this appellant dated 07.08.2017 (Annexure P-1).
LPA 577/2019 Page 4 of 8
(Annexure P-6), vide another order dated 18th June, 2019 (Annexure P-11), nor can the Chief Information Commissioner dilute or review his own order dated 16th October, 2018.
4. Arguments canvassed by the counsel for Union of India
LPA 577/2019 Page 5 of 8
complaint preferred by this appellant before Chief Information Commissioner. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the Chief Information Commissioner while passing the order dated 18th June, 2019 (Annexure P-11), as well as by the learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition preferred by this appellant.
5. Reasons
LPA 577/2019 Page 6 of 8
Commissioner. If this appellant (original petitioner) is aggrieved by the communication dated 1st November, 2018 passed by respondent No.1 (AnnexureP-7), the petitioner is always at liberty to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law.
It further appears from the facts of the case that a complaint was preferred by this appellant under Section 18 of the Act, 2005 before the Chief Information Commissioner, which was dismissed by the Chief Information Commissioner vide order dated 18th June, 2019 (Annexure P-11). Looking into the said order dated 18th June, 2019 to be read with the communication dated 1st November, 2018 (Annexure P-7), we find no reason to take any other view than what is taken by the Chief Information Commissioner. No error has been committed by the Chief Information Commissioner in dismissing the complaint preferred by this appellant under Section 18 of the Act, 2005, nor can it be said that the Chief Information Commissioner has diluted his own order dated 16th October, 2018, nor it can be said that the Chief Information Commissioner has reviewed his own order dated 16th October, 2018, as alleged by this appellant. Para 12 of the order dated 16th October, 2018, passed by the Chief Information Commissioner has already been quoted hereinabove. Looking into this order dated 16th October, 2018, the only direction given by the Chief Information Commissioner to respondent No.1 was to take a decision, which has already been taken by respondent No.1 on 1st November, 2018.
LPA 577/2019 Page 7 of 8
(Annexure P-11), nor has any error been committed by the learned Single Judge while deciding W.P.(C) 8275/2019 vide judgment and order dated 31st July, 2019 (Annexure P-1). Hence, there is no substance in this LPA and the same is dismissed.
CHIEF JUSTICE
C.HARI SHANKAR, J
SEPTEMBER 06, 2019/ns
Page 8 of 8
LPA 577/2019
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the dismissal of the complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act by the Chief Information Commissioner involved an error of law.
Whether the respondent's compliance of the second appellate order diluted or diluted the Commissioner's earlier directive.
Whether the legislature intended to allow review of the Commissioner's order by the Commissioner himself.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
SANJIV CHATURVEDI
CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER
C. HARI SHANKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
