Dismissed¶30

Pawan Bhimsaria v. Cpio Union Bank of India Kolkata

Delhi HC23 Apr 2026W.P.(C)/9122/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court, W.P.(C) 9122/2025, Pawan Bhimsaria v. CPIO Union Bank of India Kolkata, decided 23.04.2026 by Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav. RTI Act, 2005 petition challenging CIC order dated 27.05.2025 (Second Appeal No. CIC/UBIND/ N2024/ 116560) dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction: CPIO located at Kolkata; location of CIC in Delhi not a sole ground to entertain the petition; Siddartha S. Mookerjee v. Madhab Chand Mitter, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4285, applied; petitioner's own earlier case W.P.(C) 10357/2025 (12.03.2026) relied upon; liberty to approach jurisdictional High Court; rights and contentions left open.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional High Court to agitate the lis, if so advised; all rights and contentions of the parties left open.

Pawan Bhimsaria Vs Cpio Union Bank of India Kolkata — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition dismissed; liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional High Court to agitate the lis, if so advised; all rights and contentions of the parties left open.

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition is maintainable before the Delhi High Court where the CPIO is situated at Kolkata and the material, essential and integral cause of action arose outside the Court's territorial jurisdiction, the mere presence of the CIC in Delhi notwithstanding.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The material, essential and integral cause of action in the instant case has arisen outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court.

¶29

Key takeaways

Even if a part of the cause of action may have arisen in Delhi, that alone should not be the sole reason for this Court to entertain the petition; the mere circumstance that the CIC is situated in Delhi is not a ground to invoke this Court's jurisdiction.ratio¶29
Since the CPIO in the instant case is at Kolkata, the petitioner must approach the jurisdictional High Court for the grievance against the CIC order.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

RTI / Territorial jurisdiction — Writ petition under W.P.(C) 9122/2025 sought setting aside of the CIC order dated 27.05.2025 in Second Appeal No. CIC/UBIND/ N2024/ 116560 and directions to the CPIO, Union Bank of India, Kolkata, to furnish information. Dismissed on maintainability: the Court held that the mere fact that the Central Information Commission is seated in Delhi is not, by itself, a ground to entertain the petition; the material, essential and integral cause of action arose outside the Court's territorial jurisdiction as the CPIO is at Kolkata, and even a partly-Delhi cause of action would not suffice. The Court applied, with full force, the principle of the Supreme Court in Siddartha S. Mookerjee and Anr. v. Madhab Chand Mitter and Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4285, and reiterated its own earlier ruling in Pawan Bhimsaria vs. CPIO Union Bank of India Mumbai (W.P.(C) 10357/2025, order dated 12.03.2026). Liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional High Court; all rights and contentions left open. (Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J.; decided 23.04.2026.)

¶1

$~63

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 9122/2025

¶4

PAWAN BHIMSARIA .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr Suryansh Kumar Arora, Mr Samresh Chandra Jha, Mr Avinash Kumar Bharti, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

CPIO UNION BANK OF INDIA KOLKATA .....Respondent

¶8

Through: Mr. OP Gaggar and Mr. Sachindra Karn, Advocates.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 23.04.2026

¶12

The instant petition is for the following reliefs:-

¶13

“a. Set Aside the Impugned order dated 27.05.2025 passed by the Central Information Commission in Second Appeal No CIC/UBIND/ N2024/ 116560 and/ or;

¶14

b. Direct the Respondent CPIO to provide and furnish the information sought by the Petitioner by way of his Application under the RTI Act, 2005.

¶15

c. Pass any such orders, or directions which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

¶16

With respect to almost similar controversy as involved herein, this Court in the case of petitioner himself titled as Pawan Bhimsaria vs. CPIO Union Bank of India Mumbai¹ has held that merely the Central Information Commission (‘CIC’) is in Delhi, should not be the sole reason to entertain

¶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 27/04/2026 at 14:05:46

¶19

the petition by this Court.

¶20

In the instant case, the Central Public Information Office (‘ CPIO’ ) is at Kolkata, therefore, the petitioner will have to approach the jurisdictional High Court.

¶21

In Siddartha S. Mookerjee and Anr. v. Madhab Chand Mitter and Anr .² , the Supreme Court was moved to assail an order of this Court, whereby notice was issued in a petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging an order passed by the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission at New Delhi (‘ NCDRC’ ). The facts in that case were, that originally, a complaint was filed before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum at Kolkata, which was rejected vide order dated 13.10.2017. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was filed before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal at Kolkata which was allowed vide order dated 13.02.2020. Dissatisfied by the said order, review petitions were preferred before the NCDRC, which were in turn allowed.

¶22

On the sole ground that the NCDRC, which is the authority that passed the impugned order, is situated in Delhi, the jurisdiction of this Court was invoked, and notice in the said petition was issued. While allowing the appeal, and disposing of the writ petitions filed before this Court, the Supreme Court noted that that cannot be a ground to move the Delhi High Court. The material portion of the judgement reads as under:

¶23

“8. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 contends that the jurisdictional High Court in the instant case ought to be treated as the High Court of Delhi, inasmuch as the judgment impugned before the High Court was passed by the NCDRC at Delhi.

¶24

1 W.P.(C) 10357/2025; dated 12.03.2026

¶25

2 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4285

¶26

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 27/04/2026 at 14:05:46

¶27

9. In our opinion, that can hardly be treated as a ground to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi. The respondent No. 1 ought to have approached the High Court of Calcutta being aggrieved by the impugned judgment as the entire cause of action in the present case has arisen in Kolkata, where the patient was operated for ovarian cancer on 24th February, 2012, and expired on 30^th July, 2014. The complaint case was filed at Kolkata based on the aforesaid cause of action. Merely, because the NCDRC has allowed the revision petitions filed by the appellants and the respondent no. 2 would not be a ground to vest jurisdiction in the High Court of Delhi.

¶28

10. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The petitions filed before the High Court of Delhi are disposed of with liberty granted to the respondent no. 1 to approach the High Court of Calcutta for seeking appropriate relief. In the event the respondent no. 1 files a petition before the High Court of Calcutta within four weeks from today, the appellant herein shall not raise any objection as to the maintainability of the said petition on the ground of limitation. It is further directed that in this duration, the appellants shall not rely on the order passed by the NCDRC.”

¶29

The principle of Siddartha S. Mookerjee and Anr ., (supra) applies with full force to the facts of the instant case. The material, essential and integral cause of action has arisen outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Even if it is considered that a part of cause of action may have arisen in Delhi, however, the same should not be the sole reason to entertain the instant petition.

¶30

In view of the above, the petition stands dismissed. Liberty is, however, granted in favour of the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional High Court to agitate the instant lis , if so advised.

¶31

All rights and contentions of the parties are left open.

¶32

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J APRIL 23, 2026 Nc

¶33

This is a digitally signed order.

¶34

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 27/04/2026 at 14:05:46

Pawan Bhimsaria v. Cpio Union Bank of India Kolkata

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Bhimsaria v. Cpio Union Bank of India Kolkata

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jai Singh Vs National Bal Bhavan & Ors.

Dr. Raman Mahindra Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Krishan Chand Gupta & Anr. Vs Office of the Lt.Governor of Delhi & Ors.

Naresh Khorwal Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi through Its Commissioner & Ors.

Rashtriya Nirbal Uthan Sansthan and Anr. Vs State of N.C.T of Delhi and Ors.

M/S Modern Convent School Vs Yogender Kumar

M/S Kashish Overseas Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Cgst & Anr.

Shweta Sawhney Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Krishan Chand Gupta & Anr. Vs Office of the Lt.Governor of Delhi & Ors.

Ram Nath Singh President Rwa (North) and Ors. Vs the Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Rajneesh Aggarwal Vs Directorate of Enforcement through Its Deputy Director Gurgaon Zonal Office & Anr.

Indian National Trade Union Congress Vs Union of India & Ors.

Rajarshi Goswami Vs Union of India & Anr.

Fatimah Basim Jasim Vs Union of India & Ors.