Dismissed

Rajputana Shakti International LLP through Authorized Representative Mahendra Kumar Singh v. Central Public Information Officer as Representative of Cic & Ors.

Delhi HC15 Jul 2024W.P.(C)/7828/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged an CIC order directing inspection of an RCC road. The contractor petitioner contended they lacked locus standi as they were not a party to RTI proceedings and argued inspection of immovable property falls outside the RTI Act. The High Court dismissed the petition, observing the petitioner had independent remedies regarding bill payments and should have approached the court

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed with a direction observing the petitioner lacks locus standi.

Rajputana Shakti International LLP through Authorized… — RTI and Transparency | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~13

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 7828/2021

¶4

RAJPUTANA SHAKTI INTERNATIONAL LLP THROUGH AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE MAHENDRA KUMAR SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ganesh Khanna, Mr. Nikhil Ramdev, Mr. Samar Pratap Singh and Mr. Karan Singh, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER AS REPRESENTATIVE OF CIC & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Arun Singh, Advocate.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶8

¶9

O R D E R 15.07.2024

¶10

Respondent No. 2 filed an RTI application with Respondent No. 3, CPIO, Senior Divisional Engineer-I Northeastern Railway, dated 3^rd May, 2019 seeking the following information:

¶11

1) “According to Section-2 (j) (1) of the Right to Information Act 2005, every citizen has the right to inspect any government work. Under this, I am on R.C.C. Road in Northern Railway Colony located at Bhatni Junction of North Eastern Railway. Please let me know the date, time, location when I can come and check this work.

¶12

2) I would also Jike to inspect the following documents related to this work at the time of inspection, so please provide the documents to me at the time of inspection.

¶13

(a) Measurement Book

¶14

Page 1 of 4

¶15

W.P.(C) 7828/2021

¶16

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 03/07/2025 at 23:46:25

¶17

(b) Expenditure details, sketches and others.

¶18

3) According to section 2 (j) (3), every citizen has the right to take a certified sample of the material used in government work. Under this, I want to take a certified sample of the material used in the appropriate work by the department. The sample should be collected by the department in my presence from the place fixed by me and sealed and it should be certified by the department that the sealed sample is the original sample of the material of the work. Please inform me the location, time, date when I can come for inspection.”

¶19

The matter escalated to the Central Information Commission,¹ in a second appeal, under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which has been decided through order dated 16^th June, 2021,² in CIC/NERLG/A/2019/ 140954 titled Sumant Kumar dixit v. CPIO, Sr. Divisional Engineer, North Eastern Railway . The operative portion of the

¶20

decision is as follows:

¶21

“Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that the internal management in the Respondent public authority's office is deplorable. The representative of the Respondent is not even in a position to answer the queries posed by the Commission during the hearing. The Commission is extremely irked by the conduct of the Respondent and the same is being viewed adversely. The Commission cautions the Respondent to be careful in future and that they shall ensure that all the communications/correspondences made under the guise of RTI Act should be typically maintained as per the prevailing guidelines of the DoPT as well as in accordance with the extant provisions of the RTI Act and RTI Rules. Be it as it may, since the Appellant has expressed his willingness for inspection as sought in the instant RTI Application, the Commission accordingly directs the present CPIO to facilitate inspection as sought in the instant RTI Application on a mutually decided date and time duly intimated to the Appellant. Copy of documents, if desired, shall be provided to the Appellant free of cost upto 25 pages and for copies beyond this limit, prescribed fees shall be charged as per Rule 4 of the RTI Rules, 2012. With the above observations, the Instant Second Appeal is disposed of.

¶22

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

1 “CIC”

2 “Impugned order”

Page 2 of 4

W.P.(C) 7828/2021

This is a digitally signed order.

¶28

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 03/07/2025 at 23:46:25

¶29

The Appeal, hereby, stands disposed of”

¶30

While commenting upon the conduct of Respondent No. 3, a direction was also issued allowing Respondent No.2 to inspect the road constructed by the Petitioner, on a mutually convenient time and date. This inspection was granted in terms of the request made in the RTI application dated 3^rd May, 2019, of RCC Road in North Railway Colony located at Bhatni Junction of North Eastern Railway to check the progress of the work.

¶31

In this background, the Rajputana Shakti International LLP, the Petitioner, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court to assail the aforenoted Impugned order. 5. The Petitioner contends that they are engaged in the business of construction and development and were awarded the contract of construction of the RCC Road in Bhatni Junction, of which the inspection has been directed through the Impugned order. They submit that the construction of road was completed by the Petitioner on 28^th September, 2018 and the same was done in accordance with terms of the contract. It is further contended that Respondent No. 2 is an RTI activist and on account of him having secured this order of inspection, the Railway (Respondent No.4) is not processing their bills. In these circumstances, the Petitioner seeks quashing of the Impugned order. They also place reliance on the judgment dated 29^th September, 2015 in The Public Information Officer, Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Saurabh Sharma and Ors.,³ to submit that the definition of ‘right to information’ under section 2(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 would

3 W.P.(C) 4675/2012.

Page 3 of 4

W.P.(C) 7828/2021

This is a digitally signed order.

¶36

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 03/07/2025 at 23:46:25

¶37

not include a right to physical verification of immovable properties.

¶38

In the opinion of the Court, the petition is entirely misconceived. The Petitioner was not a party to the RTI proceedings which culminated in the Impugned order. In case such an inspection, directed through the Impugned order, is beyond the purview of the Act, it is for the Railways (Respondent No.4) to approach the Court. The Petitioner who is only a contractor, has an independent right and remedy in case their bills are not paid by the Railways (Respondent No.4). The Court finds the Petitioner has no locus to challenge the Impugned order under Article 226 of the constitution.

¶39

Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.

¶40

SANJEEV NARULA, J

JULY 15, 2024 as

Page 4 of 4

W.P.(C) 7828/2021

Rajputana Shakti International LLP through Authorized Representative Mahendra Kumar Singh v. Central Public Information Officer as Representative of Cic & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajputana Shakti International LLP through Authorized Representative Mahendra Kumar Singh v. Central Public Information Officer as Representative of Cic & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gyanankur Vs Food Corporation of India & Ors.

Shukla Rani Vs Union of India & Ors.

Mata Krishnawati Memorial Education Society & Anr. Vs Delhi Development Authority

Arjun Kolhi & Anr. Vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Ors.

Union of India & Ors. Vs Sh. Om Prakash Singh

M/S Paras Impex Vs Office of the Commissioner of Customs (Export) & Ors.

Hazrat Nizamuddin Welfare Association Regd Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors. & Ors.

Evermore Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 7-1 Delhi

Naresh Kumar Sharma Vs Ministry of Corporate Affairs and Ors.

Hinduja Global Solutions Ltd. Vs Fastway Transmission Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

C.P. Arya Public Jr. High School Vs Central Board of Secondary Education

Laj Madan & Anr. Vs Giridhar Aramane & Ors.

Rajputana Shakti International LLP Vs Sumant Kumar Dixit

Sanjay Bhaskar Vs Union of India & Anr.