Disposed¶22

Alka Dhingra v. Union of India through Secretary & Anr.

Delhi HC5 May 2025W.P.(C)/1955/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Alka Dhingra v. Union of India through Secretary & Anr.; W.P.(C) 1955/2025; High Court of Delhi; Justice Sachin Datta; Order dated 05.05.2025; RTI Act 2005 Section 6, Section 19, Section 19(3); second appeal pending before Central Information Commission (diary no. 122/89; filed 11.07.2024; registered 12.07.2024; no hearing scheduled); PIO reply dated 19.03.2024 incomplete and misleading; FAA order dated 30.05.2024 directing revised pointwise information within 15 days; petition disposed of with request to CIC to expedite hearing.

What did the court decide?

Request to the CIC to list the petitioner's appeal for due consideration, with an endeavor to dispose of it as expeditiously as possible. ¶22

Alka Dhingra Vs Union of India through Secretary & Anr. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

$~6

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 1955/2025 ALKA DHINGRA .....Petitioner

¶4

Through: Mr. Anuroop PS and Mr. Sachin Wadhwa, Advs. (through v/c)

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY & ANR.

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

Through: Mr. Abdhesh Chaudhary, CGSC and Ms. Geetanjali Setia, Adv. for R- 1/UOI.

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

% 05.05.2025

¶13

The limited relief sought by the petitioner in the present petition is that the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Central Information Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘ the CIC ’) be heard and decided expeditiously. It is submitted that the said appeal was filed against diary no. 122/89 on 11.07.2024, and was duly registered in the office of the respondent no. 2 on 12.07.2024. It is further submitted that there is no inkling as to the date on which the said appeal shall be taken up for consideration by the CIC.

¶14

The backdrop of the present petition concerns an application dated 27.01.2024 filed by the petitioner under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ RTI Act ’). It is submitted by the petitioner that while a reply to this application was furnished by the concerned Public Information Officer on 19.03.2024, the same was incomplete and misleading.

¶15

Accordingly, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the First

¶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 01/07/2025 at 20:26:47

¶17

Appellate Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘ the FAA ’) by filing an application dated 02.04.2024 under Section 19 of the RTI Act.

¶18

Subsequently, the FAA vide order dated 30.05.2024 had directed the concerned Public Information Officer to provide a revised pointwise information within a period of 15 days. The relevant portion of the said order dated 30.05.2024 is reproduced as under:

¶19

“ The Appeal was heard on the scheduled date & time. During the hearing, the PIO reiterated the information provided to the Appellant. But the Appellant/ Advocate of the Appellant told that they have neither received satisfactory information from PIO/Building(HQ) nor received the copies of letters by which RTI application has been transferred to other departments to provide information pertaining to them. The Advocate for the Appellant also insisted for providing copies of the sanctioned building plans relating to the property mentioned in the RTI Application. After hearing both the parties, the PIO/EE (B) is directed to provide the revised pointwise information to the Appellant, permissible under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, within a period of 15 days. ”

¶20

It is further averred by the petitioner that pursuant to this, since no information was received from the concerned Public Information Officer, the petitioner had preferred the second appeal before the CIC by filing an application dated 11.07.2024 under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act. However, it is the case of the petitioner that the matter is still pending before the CIC and no hearing being scheduled therein.

¶21

In the aforenoted circumstances, the present petition is disposed of with a request to the CIC to list the aforesaid appeal filed by the petitioner for due consideration. Let an endeavor be made to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible.

¶22

The petition is disposed of in above terms.

¶23

MAY 5, 2025/ cl SACHIN DATTA, J

¶24

Alka Dhingra v. Union of India through Secretary & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alka Dhingra v. Union of India through Secretary & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Kumar Vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Jaspal Kaur Public School Vs Directorate of Education Government of NCT of Delhi

Management of C.P.W.D. Vs Vinod Kumar Trivedi

Management of Cpwd Vs Smt.Lata Singh & Anr.

Royal Trading Company Vs Union of India & Ors.

Jm Traders through Proprietor Shivam Bansal Vs Union of India & Ors.

Alaknanda Steel through Its Proprietor Mr. Rajesh Garg Vs Commissioner of Dgst & Ors.

M/S Shree Jain Polymers Vs Union of India & Anr.

B S Monnu Chadha Vs Union of India & Ors.

M/S. Oriental Epc Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. [Formerly Known as M/S. Oriental Nicco Projects Pvt. Ltd.] Vs Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited & Ors.

Munna Lal Vs Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi through Its Secretary & Ors.

Swati Singh Vs Jawaharlal Nehru University

Sandeep Kumar Srivastava and Anr. Vs Union of India

Sh. Ram Chander Alais Ramu Vs Government of National Capital Territory Ofdelhi & Ors.