Disposed¶26

Union of India v. Mohan Dhansing Chavhan

Delhi HC8 Apr 2026W.P.(C)/5403/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Union of India v. Mohan Dhansing Chavhan; W.P.(C) 5403/2012 and CM APPL. 11016/2012; High Court of Delhi; Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav; decided 08.04.2026; Right to Information Act, 2005; Renke Commission Report; CIC Appeal No. CIC/SS/A/2011/001339; CPIO rejection dated 23.03.2011; disclosure of Commission report pending Government decision; CIC order dated 27.06.2012 set aside; stay dated 15.10.2012 confirmed 09.09.2013; ex parte against unrepresented RTI applicant; liberty to file fresh RTI application before PIO.

What did the court decide?

Impugned CIC order dated 27.06.2012 set aside; RTI applicant granted liberty to file a fresh application before the concerned PIO, to be dealt with in accordance with law; petition and pending application disposed of. ¶26

Union of India Vs Mohan Dhansing Chavhan — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 27.06.2012 passed by the Central Information Commission in Appeal No. CIC/SS/A/2011/001339, directing disclosure of the Renke Commission Report, should be quashed/set aside. +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

For the reasons stated, the impugned CIC order dated 27.06.2012 stands set aside.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

The findings by the CIC granting information notwithstanding the pending consideration of the recommendations cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

¶21

Key takeaways

Unless the Commission's recommendations are placed before the concerned Government and a decision is taken thereon, the same should not be supplied under the RTI Act.ratio¶24
The RTI applicant is granted liberty to file a fresh application before the concerned Public Information Officer, and the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J.; order dated 08.04.2026) set aside the order dated 27.06.2012 of the Central Information Commission in Appeal No. CIC/SS/A/2011/001339, which had directed disclosure of the Renke Commission Report under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Court held that the CIC's findings granting information notwithstanding the pending consideration of the Commission's recommendations could not be sustained in the eyes of law, and that unless the Commission's recommendations are placed before the concerned Government and a decision taken thereon, the same should not be supplied under the RTI Act. The RTI applicant (respondent, unrepresented despite notice, against whom the Court had proceeded ex parte) was granted liberty to file a fresh application before the concerned Public Information Officer, to be dealt with in accordance with law. The writ petition along with the pending application (CM APPL. 11016/2012) stood disposed of. Earlier, this Court had stayed the CIC order on 15.10.2012 and confirmed the stay on 09.09.2013.

¶1

$~90

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 5403/2012 and CM APPL. 11016/2012

¶4

UNION OF INDIA .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Ruchir Mishra, Mr. Sanjiv Kr. Saxena, Mr. Mukesh Kr Tiwari, Ms. Reba Jena Mishra and Ms. Poonam Shukla, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

MOHAN DHANSING CHAVHAN .....Respondent Through: None.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 08.04.2026

¶10

The instant petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:

¶11

“a) pass appropriate writ, directions or order in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, direction or order quashing the impugned order dated 27.06.2012 passed by Ld. Central Information Commission in Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/001339;

¶12

b) Such other and further direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts of the case.”

¶13

The sole grievance of the petitioner is that Central Information Commission ( hereinafter “CIC” ) vide order dated 27.06.2012 has directed disclosure of Renke Commission Report under the Right to Information Act, 2005 ( hereinafter “RTI Act ”).

¶14

The facts of the case would indicate that an application dated 21.02.2011 was filed by the respondent under the RTI Act seeking a copy of the Renke Commission Report and action taken thereon. The Central Public

¶15

This is a digitally signed order.

¶16

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 16/04/2026 at 13:26:05

¶17

Information Officer ( hereinafter “CPIO” ) rejected the request on 23.03.2011 on the ground that the report was under examination and cannot be made available in the public domain.

¶18

Vide order dated 27.06.2012 the CIC, in the second appeal, directed disclosure of the Renke Commission Report. Thereafter, vide order dated 15.10.2012 this Court directed for stay of the CIC’s order and subsequently, the stay order was confirmed on 09.09.2013. 5. It be noted that despite service of notice, the RTI applicant is not represented throughout the proceeding. Since he was not being represented, therefore, the Court has proceeded ex parte against him. 6. This Court vide order dated 06.04.2026 directed the petitioner to take the instructions whether the deliberations qua the report have been completed or otherwise. The petitioner submits that the instructions have not yet been received.

¶19

Be that as it may, the matter relates to RTI application filed in the year 2011 which related to the Commission setup by the Government at a relevant point of time. By this time the report might have been considered by the Government and the same would have been taken to its logical conclusion.

¶20

The RTI applicant, therefore, is granted liberty to file a fresh application before the concerned Public Information Officer ( hereinafter “PIO” ). Let the same be dealt with in accordance with law.

¶21

So far as the findings by the CIC with respect to the grant of information notwithstanding the pending consideration of the recommendations are concerned, the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

¶22

This is a digitally signed order.

¶23

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 16/04/2026 at 13:26:05

¶24

It be noted that unless the Commission recommendations are placed before the concerned Government and the decision is taken, the same should not be supplied under the RTI Act.

¶25

For all those reasons the impugned order stands set aside. Liberty to the RTI applicants as stated above stands granted.

¶26

The instant petition along with pending application stands disposed of.

¶27

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J

¶28

APRIL 8, 2026/Sh

¶29

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 16/04/2026 at 13:26:05

Union of India v. Mohan Dhansing Chavhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. Mohan Dhansing Chavhan

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

Baby Tanvi Yadav through Her Guardian Sushil Yadav (Father) Vs Government of NCT Delhi & Anr.

Nb Sub Ramakant Singh Vs Union of India

Carreg Commodities Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Punjab National Bank and Ors.

Ms Saloni Breja Proprietor of Ms Galaxy World Vs Central Goods and Services Tax Delhi North and Anr.

Master Tanishq Negi through Her Mother Vs Union of India & Ors.

Baby Ishita Yadav through Her Father Vs Union of India & Ors.

Virender Kumar Tyagi Vs Union of India & Ors.

Amar Jeet & Ors. Vs Registrar Cooperative Societies & Anr.

Okhla Industrial Area Cetp Society (Regd) Vs Delhi Pollution Control Committee & Anr.

Kra Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council Council, District West & Anr.

Shyam Lal Yadav and Ors. Vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Union of India Vs Milap Coraria

Ujjawal Gaur Vs Union of India and Ors.

Rajeev Kumar Garg Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India