Dismissed

Ram Bharose Lal Meena v. Raj.Information Commission and O

Rajasthan HC15 Feb 2008CW/1403/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged rejection of his RTI application on grounds of using designation instead of individual name and non-payment of fee. Court dismissed petition, noting fresh application by personal name after fee payment is viable.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioner free to apply afresh by individual name after paying requisite fees.

Ram Bharose Lal Meena Vs Raj.Information Commission… — RTI and Transparency | Rajasthan HC (2008)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1403/08
Ram Bharose Lal Meena vs. Rajasthan
Information Commission & Ors.

¶3

Date of order : 15/2/2008.

¶4

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

¶5

Shri D.K. Dixit for the petitioner.

¶6

******

¶7

The petitioner has challenged the order
dated 5.6.2007 whereby his application
demanding certain information was rejected
by the competent authority on the ground
that the petitioner demanded information
through association and not individually.
The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid
order before the Rajasthan Information
Commissioner by way of filing appeal. The
appeal was also dismissed by the Commission
by order dated 21.7.07, which order is also
under challenge.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner
argued that even if the petitioner while
demanding the information / documents used
his designation that does not mean that he
ceased to be a citizen of this country as

¶9

¶10

while holding office of the Assistant

¶11

Engineer, PHED, he was very much a citizen
of the nation.

¶12

On perusal of the order, I find that the
application was rejected not only on the
ground that the petitioner applied by his
designation but also because he did not
timely deposit the requisite fee when
demanded.

¶13

I therefore do not find any good reason
to interfere with the impugned orders passed
by the authorities below. However, it is
always open to the petitioner to apply
afresh by his individual name after
depositing the requisite charges as
demanded. If any such application is made,
the same is liable to be considered by the
concerned authorities afresh in accordance
with law.

¶14

The writ petition is dismissed though
with the aforesaid observations.

¶15

 (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J.

¶16

RS/

Ram Bharose Lal Meena v. Raj.Information Commission and O

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Bharose Lal Meena v. Raj.Information Commission and O

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahesh Kumar Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Ramavatar and Ors. Vs B O R and Ors.

Surendra Giri Chela Vs Krishan Pal and Anr.

Rajasthan Small Industries Cor Vs Union of India and Ors.

R N Forging Pvt. Ltd. Vs R S I D Ltd. and Ors.

Rajasthan Kishan Vikash Sangh, Vs a v v N Ltd, Ajmer