Dismissed¶25

Raj Kumar Arora v. Central Information Commission and Others

RTI – Letters Patent Appeal

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Aug 2025LPA/594/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Right to Information Act, 2005; RTI request for information regarding complaint made against applicant; Central Information Commission; CBI; Prevention of Corruption Act conviction; FIR on the complaint; information already in knowledge of applicant; harassment of department; private interest versus public interest; LPA against Single Judge dismissal of CWP-24272-2024; High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh; Harsimran Singh Sethi J.; Vikas Suri J.; decided 21.08.2025; speaking/reasoned Yes; reportable No.

What did the court decide?

The information sought by the appellant is already in his knowledge and is being sought only to harass the department-CBI ¶23

Raj Kumar Arora Vs Central Information Commission and… — Corruption | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

116

¶3

LPA-594-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.08.2025

Raj Kumar Arora

...Appellant

Versus

Central Information Commission and others

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI

¶10

Present: Mr. Nikhil Ghai, Advocate and

¶11

Mr. Nipur Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the appellant.

¶12

Mr. Akashdeep Singh, Special Public Prosecutor, for respondent Nos.2 and 3-CBI.

¶13

¶14

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (ORAL)

¶15

In the present appeal, the challenge is to the order dated 27.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the writ petition (CWP-24272-2024) filed by the appellant seeking certain information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘RTI’), has been dismissed.

¶16

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant sought certain information with regard to the complaint, which was made against him and the manner in which the same was made. Learned counsel submits that it becomes the duty of the department concerned to provide the said information sought by the appellant, which was wrongly denied to be given to appellant and even the learned Single Judge also failed to appreciate

¶17

HARISH KUMAR 2025.08.25 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

LPA-594-2025 (O&M)

-2-

the same.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case with their assistance.

¶22

It may be noticed that the information, which is being sought by the appellant, relates to the case of the appellant himself, in which he was proceeded against under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act and ultimately, was even found guilty by the competent Court of law and convicted. The appeal filed against the judgment of conviction is pending consideration before this Court.

¶23

Only to harass the department-CBI, the information is being sought for by the appellant, which information is already in the knowledge of the appellant. Once the complaint regarding which information is being sought was made the subject matter of the FIR filed against the appellant and due opportunity was given to the appellant to bring on record the relevant material to exonerate himself and show that he was not guilty of the allegations alleged against him and after considering all the facts, he has already been convicted by the Court of competent jurisdiction; now in order to find the loopholes so as to find a way to slip away from the conviction, the appellant is seeking certain information of his own case, which cannot be treated as having been made in public interest, rather the same is made in purely private interest.

¶24

Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case, no ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the well reasoned order passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶25