Dismissed

Saraswati Shrestha v. the Central Public Information Officer

Delhi HC5 Aug 2024W.P.(C)/10719/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court rejected a writ petition challenging an RTI refusal by the Indian Nursing Council. The Court held that the petitioner sought only a copy of a specific confidential letter which was provided, and no further intervention was warranted despite the petitioner's dissatisfaction with the content.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; liberty granted to file fresh RTI application if further information is required.

Saraswati Shrestha Vs the Central Public Information… — RTI and Transparency | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~64

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 10719/2024

¶4

SARASWATI SHRESTHA

¶5

.....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Singh, Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Singh, Mr. Santosh Kumar Yadav, Advocates.

¶7

versus

¶8

THE CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER

¶9

.....Respondent

¶10

Through: Mr. V.S.R. Krishna, Mr. Yagya Srivastava, Mr. V. Sashank, Mr. Alok Jain, Advocates

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

05.08.2024

The Petitioner filed an application dated 10^th September, 2022 with the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Indian Nursing Council, seeking the following information “Please provide certified copy of entire file File No.7-2/2016-INC (13)-648 dated 30.08.2022.” In response, the Petitioner received communication dated 6^th October, 2022 to the following effect:

¶16

“Sir,

¶17

Please refer to your RTI application dated 10/09/2022 alongwith two

¶18

W.P.(C) 10719/2024

¶19

Page 1 of 6

¶20

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/08/2024 at 12:31:04

¶21

Postal order no. 59F 823612 & 57H 564140 of Rs. 10/-(as RTI fees) & Rs. 100/-(which is being returned to you in original) respectively, received by this Council on 13/09/2022.The information is given below RTI applications as under:-

¶22

Q. This is to draw your kind attention that I have passed Profeciency Certificate Examination in Nursing in year 2009 and has submitted an application for equivalency of nursing qualification, which has been rejected by you vide File no.7-2/2016-INC (13)-648 dated 30.08.2022. Copy of the said letter is enclosed herewith. I need following information:(1) Please provide certified copy of entire file no.7-212016-INC (13)-648 dt.30.08.2022

¶23

Reply: INC issued letter vide F.no.7-2/2016-INC(13)-648 dt.30/08/2022 herewith enclosed. Further, it is informed that said file is strictly confidential as disclosure of information to the public could harm the interest of the person/individual under section 8(1) (j) of RTI Act, 2005.

¶24

This disposes off RTI application dated 10/09/2022, received on 13/09/2022.

¶25

This issues with the approval of Competent Authority.”

¶26

The copy of the letter bearing file No. 7-212016-INC (13)-648 dated 30^th August, 2022 was provided to the Petitioner. The Petitioner still not satisfied with the response, preferred first appeal which was also decided against the Petitioner to the following effect:

¶27

Page 2 of 6

¶28

W.P.(C) 10719/2024

¶29

¶30

W.P.(C) 10719/2024

¶31

This is a digitally signed order.

¶32

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

¶33

Page 3 of 6

¶34

The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/08/2024 at 12:31:04

¶35

The Petitioner escalated the matter before the Central Information Commission (CIC) who have also declined to interfere directing as follows:

¶36

“ Decision:

¶37

Upon perusal of records of the case and hearing averments of the parties,

¶38

W.P.(C) 10719/2024

¶39

This is a digitally signed order.

¶40

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

¶41

Page 4 of 6

¶42

The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/08/2024 at 12:31:04

¶43

it is noted that the Respondent had furnished appropriate information, based on available records, as permissible under the law. Hence, reply sent by the PIO is found to be legally appropriate and thus upheld. It is noted that the written submission dated 16.05.2024 filed by the Respondent contains detailed and self explanatory information. Therefore, the Respondent is directed to send a copy of the written submission dated 16.05.2024, to the Appellant, within two weeks of receipt of this order and submit a compliance report in this regard before the Commission within one week thereafter. No further intervention is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act.”

¶44

The Petitioner now invokes the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and urges that the Respondents must be directed to furnish the information which was applied for. They argue that the information applied under communication dated 10^th September, 2022 has not been provided.

¶45

In the opinion of the Court, the communication dated 10^th September, 2022, specifically requested for only copy of the communication dated 30^th August, 2022 which was bearing a file No. 7-212016-INC (13)-648. Indeed, this communication has been provided, a fact which is duly acknowledged by the Petitioner. They, however, submit that there would be something more than the communication in the file. However, in the opinion of the Court, the application under RTI, was specific to communication dated 30^th August, 2022 which has been categorically mentioned in the application and the same has been provided.

¶46

Moreover, the basis for such a decision has been sent out by the Respondent in the written statements dated 16^th May, 2024 which has also been provided.

¶47

In light of the above, whether this information supports the decision of 30^th August, 2022, is not the subject matter of the present petition. As far

¶48

Page 5 of 6

¶49

W.P.(C) 10719/2024

¶50

¶51

as the compliance in the RTI is concerned, the Court is satisfied that the same has been met and accordingly the Court finds no ground to entertain the present writ petition.

¶52

In the meantime, counsel for the Petitioner urges that apart from the communication dated 30^th August, 2022, there are other documents in the file No. 7-2/2016-INC (13)-648 for which they should be given liberty to apply again under RTI Act. It is thus clarified that if the Petitioner were to seek additional information, the same shall be considered in accordance with law.

¶53

The present petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶54

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶55

AUGUST 5, 2024/ab

¶56

Page 6 of 6

¶57

W.P.(C) 10719/2024

¶58

This is a digitally signed order.

¶59

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/08/2024 at 12:31:04

Saraswati Shrestha v. the Central Public Information Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saraswati Shrestha v. the Central Public Information Officer

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

Fairfield Institute of Management and Technology Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Yogesh Sethi Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others & Ors.

Adroit Financial Services Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1),DELHI & Ors.

Avni Nath Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 54(1), Delhi

Surinder Kumar Vs Tpddl and Anr.

Dr. Subhash Vijayran Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Guru Harkishan Public School & Anr. Vs Ravinder Singh Sachdev & Anr.

M/S Deutsche Lufthansa Ag Vs Mr. Nayan Pahwa & Ors.

Sh. Chote Lal Vs Sh. Manoj Kumar and Anr.

Wg. Cdr Kunal Kumra (Retd.) Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sh. Sunil Aggarwal Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Parvesh Masood Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Sarda Metals and Alloys Limited Vs Steel Authority of India Limited & Anr.

Saraswati Shrestha Vs the Central Public Information Officer