The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal challenging a writ petition that opposed a penalty order dismissed by the writ court. The High Court held that the Commission had discretion regarding the penalty quantum and dismissed the appeal due to substantial procedural delays.
The appeal was dismissed and pending applications were closed.
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.
$~52
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ASHUTOSH GAUTAM .....Appellant Through: Mr M.K. Bhardwaj, Mrs Priyanka M. Bhardwaj, Ms Akshita Nain, Mr Himanshu Bhardwaj and Mr Maria Mugesh Kannan, Advs.
versus
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION & ANR....Respondents Through: Ms Rashmi Chopra, Mr Fiza Chopra and Mr Puneet Rathi, Advs. for R-2 & 3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
% 11.09.2024
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
LPA 158/2023 page 1 of 3
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 30/09/2024 at 12:53:09
“ 11. That it is an uncontradicted fact that the dispute of the complainant related to the seniority list has been decided by the tribunal on 31.10.2017. But such information has been provided only later after the decision of the tribunal which shows their malafide intention of obstructing the information. That the excuse of the answering respondent that the information sought is for a long period and hence required time to be searched and provided, is not justified as the file numbers are specifically mentioned while seeking information and the respondent did not even provide any interim reply to indicate their bonafide conduct. Again the allegation of malafide and bias in obstructing the information till the date of judgment of the tribunal has been observed by the Commission as there is no plausible justification for CPIOs keeping both RTI Applications pending and FAA not deciding the appeals to correct the judicial misconduct of CPIO independently. The only submission made is excessive workload and time required to collect the information.
xxx xxx xxx
13. In the above circumstances, levy of penalty is warranted. Therefore, this Commission is constrained to impose a penalty of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) u/s Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 each on Rajashree Sunil and Shri Ravi Chauhan, then CPIOs responsible for willfully obstructing the information by not responding to the RTI applicant in reasonable time. The amount of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) shall be deducted by the Public Authority from their salary. A demand draft drawn in favour of "PAO, CAT", New Delhi be forwarded to the Deputy Registrar (CR-II), email: [email protected] Room No. 106, First Floor, Central Information Commission, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067. This demand draft of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) each should reach the Commission by 05.11.2021. The present CPIO should ensure service of a copy of this order to the then CPIO. ”
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 30/09/2024 at 12:53:09
judgment of the learned Single Judge or orders passed by respondent no.1, given the fact that the quantum of penalty under the 2005 Act fell within the realm of respondent no. 1’s discretion.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
AMIT BANSAL, J
SEPTEMBER 11, 2024 aj
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
LPA 158/2023
page 3 of 3
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 30/09/2024 at 12:53:09
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should disturb the penalty imposed by the Central Information Commission under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Whether substantial delay in filing the appeal warrants dismissing the appeal.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ashutosh Gautam
Central Information Commission
Rajiv Shakdher
Amit Bansal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
