Partly allowed

Mohit Lila v. the Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC11 Nov 2024W.P.(C)/2148/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court held that while the CIC can direct necessary steps for compliance under Section 19 of the RTI Act, it lacks jurisdiction to make an adverse entry in the service records of CPIOs. The Court set aside such directions but imposed a penalty for the delay in information.

What did the court decide?

The direction to put instructions in service records was set aside. Separate directions to pay a penalty of INR 10,000/-.

Mohit Lila Vs the Union of India & Ors. — RTI and Transparency | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~13

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 2148/2020 & CM APPL. 7574/2020

¶4

MOHIT LILA .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Rajeev Chhetri, Ms. Meenakshi Pawal and Mr. Rajesh Chhetri, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Virender Pratap Singh Charak, Ms. Shubhra Parashar, Mr. Pushpender Pratap Singh, Advocates for R-1 to 4.

¶8

Mr. Vikash Kumar Singh, Advocate for R-5.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 11.11.2024

¶10

The present petition impugns order dated 01^st July, 2019,¹ whereby the Central Information Commission (“CIC”) while deciding the second appeal preferred by the information seeker, disposed of the petition by issuing following directions:

¶11

“The Hon’ble Commission has sent the Decision in regard to the complaint filed with CIC by Mr. Dayanand Gupta, wherein the facts arising from the complaint are explained by CIC.

¶12

The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observed that available information has been provided to the appellant, However, there is a delay of three years in providing reply/information to the appellant on his RTI application.

¶13

1 “Impugned order”

¶14

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 13/11/2024 at 12:18:43

¶15

Commission also observed this shows very casual approach on the part of Sh. Mohit Leela and Sh. Vijay Garg, the then CPIOs towards the RTI Act.

¶16

The RTI application of the appellant was not dealt by the concerned CPIOs and kept is pending from last three years. Even no explaination was offered by Sh. Mohit Kumar; Director, Works-I regarding delay in providing information. In view of this, the Commission directed the respondents-Sh. Mohit Leela and Sh. Vijay Garg, the then CPIOs to be cautious in future and ensure that the RTI applications are dealt with due seriousness and reply/information is provided within the stipulated period of time to the appellant.

¶17

Commisison Directed to the controlling officer of Sh. Mohit Leela and Sh. Vijay Gang, the then CPIOs to put these instructions of the Commission in their service records for not taking the provisions of RTI act seriously. Further, Commission directed to the Sh. Mohit Kumar, Director, Railway Board to ensure service of this order to Sh. Mohit leela and Sh. Vijay Garg the then CPIO and his controlling authority.

¶18

With the above directions, Commission has disposed the matter”

¶19

As can be seen from the above, the grievance of the information seeker was redressed as the information sought in the application has been provided. However, on account of delay in providing the information, CIC, had directed the controlling officer of Sh. Mohit Lila and Sh. Vijay Garg (the then CPIOs), to put the instructions of the Commission in their service record for not taking the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005² seriously. Petitioner’s grievance is limited to the aforenoted directions and challenges the same on the ground that the CIC does not have the jurisdiction to issue such directions.

¶20

Indeed, as per the framework of the RTI Act, under Section 19, the CIC has powers to require the public authority to take such steps as may be necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of the Act. These powers are indeed wide; however, they do not extend to the CIC, making an adverse entry into the service record of the CPIOs.

¶21

2 “RTI Act”

¶22

This is a digitally signed order.

¶23

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 13/11/2024 at 12:18:43

¶24

In view of the above, the directions contained in paragraph no. 4 of the impugned order, reproduced above, is set aside. However, in light of the fact that there was a delay in providing information to the information seeker, both, Sh. Mohit Lila and Sh. Vijay Garg shall pay a penalty of INR 10,000/-.

¶25

With the above directions, the present petition is disposed of, along with pending application.

¶26

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶27

NOVEMBER 11, 2024 d.negi

¶28

This is a digitally signed order.

¶29

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 13/11/2024 at 12:18:43

Mohit Lila v. the Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohit Lila v. the Union of India & 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

Jayaswal Necom Indsutries Ltd. & Anr. Vs UOI & Ors.

Kuldeep Kumar Singh Vs Apex Public School & Anr.

Manju Sharma Vs Apex Public School & Anr.

South Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs Raj Kumar Kanahi Nursery & Anr.

Baljinder Kaur Sahdev Vs Greenfields Public School & Ors.

Izan Ahmad Vs South Asian University and Others

Mini Stanly Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ms. Muskan Malhotra. Vs the Commissioner of Police and Ors.

Pooja Fps Vs Commissioner Food and Supply & Anr.

Suchit Kumar & Ors. Vs State & Anr.

Virbhan Vs Government of NCT Delhi through Excise Commissioner & Anr.

Ashneer Grover Vs Union of India & Ors.

Rahisuddin & Anr. Vs Swimming Federation of India and Ors.

Neeraj Chauhan Vs Union of India & Ors.