High CourtsDivision Bench(2024) 04 DEL CK 0202

Sunny Sachdeva vs ACP North RTI Cell And Anr

Delhi High Court · Decided on 16 April 2024

HON’BLE JUDGES
Manmohan, J · Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Letter Patent Appeal No. 308 Of 2024, Civil Miscellaneous No. 22104 Of 2024

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 343 words

Manmohan, J

1.

Present letters patent appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 12th March, 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.10436/2022, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 24th February, 2022 passed by Central Information Commission was disposed of in view of the  response dated 02nd August, 2023 and on account of initiation of departmental action against personnel who had furnished incorrect information to the appellant.

2.

The appellant, who appears in person states that learned Single Judge had failed to appreciate that admittedly the respondents had not only intentionally provided wrong and incorrect information but had also caused inordinate delay in giving the reply. He emphasises that the respondents could have provided correct information when the matter was pending before the First Appellate Authority and Central Information Commission. He further states that even as of today, the appellant is not satisfied with the response to his queries. He also points out that the respondents have failed to state what action has been taken against the erring officials.

3.

A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the amended replies to the queries had been accepted (before the learned Single Judge) by the appellant/petitioner as true and correct and ‘to his satisfaction’. However, as the said fact is disputed before this Court, the only option for the appellant is to file an appropriate application before the learned Single Judge in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Maharastra Vs. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and Another, (1982) 2 SCC 463.

4.

Moreover, as the respondents have already initiated departmental action against the erring officials, it is not open to the appellant at this stage to urge that the respondents have failed to take any action against the erring officials and/or no action has been taken till date. The appellant shall have to wait for the departmental proceedings to conclude before raising such a grievance.

5.

Keeping in view the aforesaid, present appeal along with the application is dismissed.