Disposed¶22

Cpio Upsc v. D Thamizhamani

Delhi HC12 May 2026W.P.(C)/10122/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge order, High Court of Delhi, 12.05.2026; W.P.(C) 10122/2021 with CM APPL. 31230/2021; CPIO UPSC (petitioner; Naresh Kaushik, Sr. Adv.) v. D THAMIZHAMANI (respondent; Anupam Srivastava, Amicus Curiae); subject: RTI appeal CIC/UPSCM/A/2019/124529, CIC order dated 10.03.2021; interim stay 14.09.2021; respondent absent and apparently disinterested; related legal question pending before Division Bench in LPA 25/2014; outcome: impugned CIC order set aside, petition disposed, liberty to RTI applicant to seek revival; no statute sections or monetary figures stated.

What did the court decide?

Impugned CIC order dated 10.03.2021 set aside; writ petition and pending application (CM APPL. 31230/2021) disposed of; liberty granted to the RTI applicant to request revival of the proceedings. ¶22

Cpio Upsc Vs D Thamizhamani — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned CIC order dated 10.03.2021 set aside; writ petition and pending application (CM APPL. 31230/2021) disposed of; liberty granted to the RTI applicant to request revival of the proceedings.

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 10.03.2021 of the Central Information Commission in Appeal No. CIC/UPSCM/A/2019/124529 should be stayed / not implemented. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

At that point of time there was no reason to direct implementation of the impugned order, the issue being pending consideration before the Division Bench.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

None appeared for the respondent/applicant, and it appeared that the respondent-RTI applicant was not interested in prosecuting the RTI application.

¶16

Key takeaways

The impugned order dated 10.03.2021 passed by the Central Information Commission is set aside.ratio¶21
The petition, along with the pending application, stands disposed of, with liberty granted to the RTI applicant to request revival of the proceedings if he so desires.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Purusshaindra Kumar Kaurav, J.), order dated 12.05.2026 in W.P.(C) 10122/2021 & CM APPL. 31230/2021: CPIO, UPSC v. D Thamizhamani. The petition challenged the order dated 10.03.2021 passed by the Central Information Commission in Appeal No. CIC/UPSCM/A/2019/124529; that order had been stayed vide order dated 14.09.2021, so the information was not provided to the respondent-RTI applicant. On the hearing date none appeared for the respondent, who appeared not interested in prosecuting the RTI application, and learned senior counsel submitted that the question of law involved was engaging the attention of the Division Bench in LPA 25/2014. Finding no reason to direct implementation of the impugned order in the circumstances, the Court set the impugned order aside, disposed of the petition with the pending application, and granted the RTI applicant liberty to request revival of the proceedings.

¶1

$~5

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 10122/2021 and CM APPL. 31230/2021

¶4

CPIO UPSC

¶5

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Sr. Advocates with Mr. Vardhman Kaushik, Mr. Anand Singh, Ms. Saumya Johari, Mr. Archit Gautam, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

D THAMIZHAMANI

¶8

.....Respondent Through: Mr Anupam Srivastava, Amicus Curiae.

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 12.05.2026

¶11

The petition is for the following reliefs:

¶12

“ (a) allow the present application;

¶13

(b) Stay the operation of the impugned order dated 10.03.2021 passed in Appeal NoCIC/UPSCM/A/2019/124529 by the Ld. CIC during the pendency and till the final disposal of the present Writ Petition; and

¶14

(c) pass such other and further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case .”

¶15

None appears for the respondent/applicant.

¶16

It appears that the respondent-RTI applicant is not interested in prosecuting the RTI application.

¶17

It is submitted by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the

¶18

This is a digitally signed order.

¶19

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 15/05/2026 at 12:51:25

¶20

question in law involved herein, is engaging attention of the Division Bench of this Court in LPA 25/2014.

¶21

The order dated 10.03.2021 (hereinafter ‘ the impugned order ’ ) passed by the Central Information Commission was stayed vide order dated 14.09.2021, and, therefore, the information was not provided to the respondent. At this point of time, there is no reason to direct for implementation of the impugned order that too when the issue is pending consideration before the Division Bench. Therefore, the impugned order, is hereby, set aside .

¶22

Accordingly, the petition, along with pending application, stands disposed of. The liberty is, however, granted to the RTI applicant to request for the revival of the proceedings, if he so desires.

¶23

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J

¶24

MAY 12, 2026 aks

¶25

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 15/05/2026 at 12:51:25

Cpio Upsc v. D Thamizhamani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cpio Upsc v. D Thamizhamani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Delhi Msw Solutions Limited Vs the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors.

Mukesh Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Ms Highway Trans Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Gnct of Delhi Transport Department

Jagpal Singh Yadav Vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

Pramod Kumar Gupta Vs Union of India and Ors.

Mr Prashant Kadam Vs Union of India & Ors.

Angarai Natarajan Sethuraman Vs Directorate of Enforcement & Anr.

B.S.R. College of Education Vs National Council for Teacher Education and Anr.

Iqubx Private Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.

Kamlesh Mehta Vs Table Tennis Federation of India and Ors.

Shiv Kumar & Ors. Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Mrs. Shalini Tiwari Vs Union of India and Ors.

Parmal & Anr. Vs the State & Ors.

Hazi Shaukin Ali and Anr. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.