Dismissed

Sh Sunny Sachdeva v. Acp North Rti Cell and Anr.

Delhi HC16 Apr 2024LPA/308/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this letters patent appeal, the Division Bench dismissed the challenge against the Single Judge's order disposing of an RTI petition. The court held that since amendments were accepted by the petitioner below, the proper remedy is to approach the Single Judge immediately, and no action can be taken regarding departmental inquiry until its conclusion.

What did the court decide?

The present appeal along with the application was dismissed.

Sh Sunny Sachdeva Vs Acp North Rti Cell and Anr. — RTI and Transparency | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~47

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- LPA 308/2024 & C.M.No.22104/2024

¶4

SH SUNNY SACHDEVA ..... Appellant

¶5

Through: Appellant in person.

¶6

versus

¶7

ACP NORTH RTI CELL AND ANR ..... Respondents

¶8

Through: None

¶9

% Date of Decision: 16^th April, 2024

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

¶12

JUDGMENT

¶13

MANMOHAN, ACJ : (ORAL)

¶14

Present letters patent appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 12^th March, 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.10436/2022, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 24^th February, 2022 passed by Central Information Commission was disposed of in view of the response dated 02^nd August, 2023 and on account of initiation of departmental action against personnel who had furnished incorrect information to the appellant.

¶15

The appellant, who appears in person states that learned Single Judge had failed to appreciate that admittedly the respondents had not only intentionally provided wrong and incorrect information but had also caused inordinate delay in giving the reply. He emphasises that the respondents could have provided correct information when the matter was pending

¶16

LPA No.308/2024 Page 1 of 2

¶17

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT SHUKLA Signing Da te:1 7.04.2024 21:46:03

¶18

before the First Appellate Authority and Central Information Commission. He further states that even as of today, the appellant is not satisfied with the response to his queries. He also points out that the respondents have failed to state what action has been taken against the erring officials.

¶19

A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the amended replies to the queries had been accepted (before the learned Single Judge) by the appellant/petitioner as true and correct and ‘to his satisfaction’. However, as the said fact is disputed before this Court, the only option for the appellant is to file an appropriate application before the learned Single Judge in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Maharastra Vs. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and Another, (1982) 2 SCC 463 .

¶20

Moreover, as the respondents have already initiated departmental action against the erring officials, it is not open to the appellant at this stage to urge that the respondents have failed to take any action against the erring officials and/or no action has been taken till date. The appellant shall have to wait for the departmental proceedings to conclude before raising such a grievance.

¶21