Maneesh Kumar Vs National Mission for Manuscripts & Anr.

By this petition instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, ostensibly in public interest, the petitioner has made a prayer to issue a direction to the respondent No.1 to comply with the order dated 29.10.2021 passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC) and further initiate prosecution as contemplated under the Right to Information Act, 2005 for violation of the directions of the CIC against the non-compliant officers of the

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

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 02/07/2025 at 00:00:32

¶19

respondent No.1 who have failed to comply with the directions of the CIC as contained in its order dated 29.10.2021.

¶20

It appears that one Mr. Dhavalkumar Kirtikumar Patel had filed Second Appeal before the CIC with the grievance that certain information sought by him is not being provided by the National Mission for Manuscripts/ respondent No.1. 6. The Second Appeal was decided by means of an order dated 29.10.2021 with a direction that the National Mission for Manuscripts shall put in public domain around 03 lakh manuscripts which it has digitized so far within a period of one year and further that the Commission shall allow the appellant of the said second appeal access, including downloading, of 30,000 manuscripts it has already put in public domain out of a total of around 03 lakh manuscripts digitized so far.

¶21

It is noteworthy that petitioner had neither made any application under the Right to Information Act, nor was a party to the Second Appeal which has been decided by the CIC by means of the order dated 29.10.2021. The said appeal was filed, as already observed above, by one Mr. Dhavalkumar Kirtikumar Patel. If the decision by the CIC has not been complied either partially or wholly, it is the appellant in the Second Appeal who can be said to be aggrieved by such non-compliance of the order passed by the CIC. The consequences of not providing information, as directed either by the Central Commission or by the State Commission are given in Section 20 of the Right to Information Act which makes a provision for imposing penalty to those responsible for non-complying with the directions or decisions given or rendered by either the Central Commission or the State Commission.

¶22

When the petitioner was confronted with the query as to what is the

¶23

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 02/07/2025 at 00:00:32

¶24

nature of the manuscripts which have been ordered to be put in public domain by the CIC, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner does not have any knowledge of the same.

¶25

Having regard to the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that if anyone can be said to be aggrieved by non-compliance of the order passed by the CIC, it is the applicant/appellant Mr. Dhavalkumar Kirtikumar Patel who had moved the application under the Right to Information Act and had taken the matter upto the Second Appeal stage before the CIC and not the petitioner. 10. In view of the aforesaid, we are not inclined to interfere in this writ petition which is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶26

DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ

¶27

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J

¶28

MAY 7, 2025

¶29

N.Khanna

¶30

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 02/07/2025 at 00:00:32

Maneesh Kumar v. National Mission for Manuscripts & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maneesh Kumar v. National Mission for Manuscripts & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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.

M/S Nikon Finlease Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -04, Delhi & Ors.

Sqn Ldr Swati Prakash Vs Union of India & Ors.

Mr. Vinod Sharma Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Ajay Prakash Mishra Vs the Registrar Cooperative Societies through Assistant Registrar & Anr.

Shaheed Bhagat Singh Sewa Dal Vs Union of India through Ministry of Housing

Manjeet Plastic Industries & Anr. Vs Union of India & Anr.

Atal Plastics Vs Union of India & Ors.

Janhit Sewa Samiti(Regd.) through Its President Sh.Ranjit Kumar Chaudhary Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Indian Profesonal Nurses Association Ipna Vs Union of India and Anr.

Vivek Chhatre Vs Union of India through Ministry of Corporate Affairs & Ors.