Disposed

Satish Goel v. Bureau of Indian Standards & Anr.

Delhi HC1 Apr 2024W.P.(C)/2272/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought compensation for inadequate RTI response. Court directed petitioner to approach CIC under Section 20 for penalty. Petitioner withdrew writ with liberty to pursue remedy under RTI Act. Court disposed of petition as withdrawn without observing on merits.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw writ petition with liberty to approach CIC under Section 20 of the RTI Act.

Satish Goel Vs Bureau of Indian Standards & Anr. — RTI and Transparency | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~31

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 2272/2023

¶4

SATISH GOEL ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Jai Subhash Thakur, Mr. Manish Malik and Mr. Nikhil Narula, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS & ANR. ..... Respondents

¶7

Through:

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

¶10

O R D E R % 01.04.2024

¶11

The Petitioner has approached this Court challenging an Order dated 18.10.2022 passed by the CIC in Appeal No. CIC/BISHQ/A/2021/641363. 2. The material on record indicates that the Petitioner had filed an RTI application seeking information regarding the function and dealings of the Bureau of Indian Standards. Dissatisfied by the information given, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority and thereafter approached the CIC in the Second Appeal. The second appeal has been disposed of by passing the following order:-

¶12

“Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that though the Respondent has attended the instant RTI Application within a stipulated time frame, the same is inadequate.

¶13

In light of the submissions made during hearing, the

¶14

Page 1 of 2

¶15

W.P.(C) 2272/2023

¶16

This is a digitally signed order.

¶17

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 04/04/2024 at 12:10:51

¶18

Commission deems it fit to direct the Respondent to revisit the instant RTI Application and furnish a revised categorical reply to the Appellant within a time frame of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. In the event CPIO is required to seek further assistance from concerned custodian of information for compliance of the above directions, the same shall be sought under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act. ”

¶19

A perusal of the said order shows that the second appeal has been allowed and the authorities have been directed to provide the requisite information. The Petitioner has approached this Court for grant of compensation of Rs. 1 lakh.

¶20

Section 20 of the RTI Act gives the power to the Commission to impose penalty if the information in case is not provided within the time stipulated or if wrong information is provided. The remedy of the Petitioner, therefore, lies in approaching the Commission under Section 20 of the RTI Act.

¶21

Faced with this, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, seeks permission to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to approach the CIC.

¶22

Permission and liberty, as prayed for, is granted.

¶23

The petition is disposed of as withdrawn along with pending application(s), if any.

¶24

It is made clear that this Court has not made any observation on the merits of the case.

¶25

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J

¶26

APRIL 1, 2024 hsk

¶27

Page 2 of 2

¶28

W.P.(C) 2272/2023

¶29

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 04/04/2024 at 12:10:51

Satish Goel v. Bureau of Indian Standards & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Goel v. Bureau of Indian Standards & 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

The Management of Moolchand Khairati Ram Hospital and Ayurvedic Research Institute Vs Sardaram Bhati

Kaushal Sangwan Vs Director General of Audit (Infrastructure), Delhi and Anr.

Mr. Gurmeet Singh Grewal & Ors. Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.

Zomi Students Federation Vs Union Public Service Commission & Ors.

M/S Blue Moon Cafe Vs Deputy Commissioner of Police & Ors.

Kamlesh Sharma Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Karamvir Singh Vs Government of NCT Delhi and Ors.

Sh. Kulbhushan Kumar Vs Salwan Boys Sr. Sec. School and Anr.

C J International Hotels Ltd. and Ors. Vs Assistant Commissioner Excise (Hcr) and Ors.

Ashok Chaturbhuj Bhatia Vs Union of India & Ors.

National Restaurant Association of India & Anr. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi

Shri Swami Samarth Engineers Ltd. Vs National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited

Rinku Kumar Vs National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. & Anr.

Raman Sethi Vs Union of India & Ors.