Dismissed

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

Delhi HC22 Jul 2024LPA/638/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against dismissal of a writ petition seeking penalty on officials under Section 20 of the RTI Act for incorrect replies. The Division Bench held that an information seeker has no locus standi in penalty proceedings and that CIC's discretion not to impose penalty was valid; appeal dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

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

¶1

$~48

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- LPA 638/2024 & C.M.No.40574/2024

¶4

SH SUNNY SACHDEVA .....Appellant Through: Appellant in person.

¶5

versus

¶6

ACP NORTH RTI CELL AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Ms.Hetu Arora Sethi, ASC, GNCTD (Through VC)

¶7

% Date of Decision: 22^nd July, 2024

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

¶10

JUDGMENT

¶11

MANMOHAN, ACJ : (ORAL)

¶12

Present appeal has been filed challenging the impugned orders dated 12^th March, 2024 and 29^th May, 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No.10436/2022 whereby the Appellant’s writ petition and review petition seeking imposition of penalty on the concerned officials under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“RTI Act”) for furnishing incorrect replies to his RTI applications were dismissed on the grounds that: (i) true and correct information sought by the Appellant had already been provided to him during the pendency of the writ petition; and (ii) appropriate action has been taken inasmuch as departmental action has been initiated against three erring officials under the applicable service rules.

¶13

The Appellant, who appears in person, states that the Respondents not only provided wrong and incorrect information, but also caused inordinate

¶14

Signature Not Verified

¶15

LPA No. 638/2024

¶16

Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:23.07.2024 18:57:31

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

delay of three years in providing correct information/reply. He further states that the alleged inadvertent error of changing diary number and giving wrong information was traced by the Respondents only after indulgence of this Court, prior to which, the Respondents adamantly stated that correct information had already been provided.

¶19

He states that the learned Single Judge has erroneously observed that the amended replies to the queries have been accepted by the Appellant/Petitioner as true and correct and to his satisfaction. He further states that despite filing the review petition, the learned Single has dismissed the same on the ground that what the Court had recorded was what had transpired during the hearing on 12^th March, 2024.

¶20

It is pertinent to mention that the Appellant’s previous appeal being LPA 308/2024 challenging the very same impugned order dated 12^th March, 2024 was dismissed vide order dated 16^th April, 2024 after giving liberty to file an appropriate application before the learned Single Judge. It was further observed that “ 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

The Appellant’s contention that the amended replies to the queries had not been accepted ‘to his satisfaction’ has been dealt with by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order dated 29^th May, 2024 as the learned Single Judge has given a finding that what transpired during the hearing had been recorded. Since High Courts are Court of Record, we are bound by

¶22

Signature Not Verified

¶23

LPA No. 638/2024

¶24

Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:23.07.2024 18:57:31

¶25

Page 2 of 3

¶26

what the learned Single Judge has recorded as to what transpired in Court on 12^th March, 2024.

¶27

In the opinion of this Court, the formation of opinion under Section 20(2) of the RTI Act is in the exercise of supervisory powers of CIC and not in the exercise of the adjudicatory powers. This Court is also of the view that the information seeker has no locus standi in penalty proceedings under Section 20 of the RTI Act. This Court is further of the view that the law laid down in Anand Bhushan vs. R.A. Haritash, LPA No. 777/2010 , decided on 29^th March, 2012 is applicable to proceedings under both Section 20(1) and Section 20(2) of the RTI Act. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that the CIC was well entitled in its discretion not to direct imposition of monetary penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, especially, when the information sought by the Appellant had been directed to be provided to him.

¶28

Keeping in view the aforesaid, present appeal along with the application is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶29

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶30

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J

¶31

JULY 22, 2024 KA

¶32

Signature Not Verified

¶33

LPA No. 638/2024

¶34

Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:23.07.2024 18:57:31

¶35

Page 3 of 3

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Resident Welfare Association G and K Block Main Road Kalkaji through Authorized Representative Mr. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Shri Umang Sahai Aggarwal & Ors. Vs the Registrar Cooperative Society & Ors.

Bimla Alias Bimla Devi Vs Edelwiess Housing Finance Limited & Anr.

Suraj Mal Vs Registrar Cooperative Societies & Ors.

Manoj Gulati Vs Oriental Bank of Commerce & Ors.

Alpha Phiris Dayal Vs Registrar General High Court of Delhi & Anr.