High Court of DelhiW.P.(C)/2110/2019

Union Of India v. Dr. Nutan Tahkur

2019-04-11Hon'Ble Mr. Justice V. Kameswar Rao2 pages

$~2 & 3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2110/2019 & CM. No. 9837/2019 + W.P.(C) 2134/2019 & CM. No. 9985/2019 UNION OF INDIA ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Amit Mahajan, CGSC with Mr. Apoorv Singhal, Adv.

versus DR. NUTAN TAHKUR ..... Respondent Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

O R D E R

% 11.04.2019 The challenge in these writ petitions is to the order dated January 9, 2019 passed by CIC whereby the CIC has directed as under: "However, the Commission directed the representatives of the Respondent Public Authorities to furnish a copy of the replies sent to the Appellant for her ready reference. The reply / statement made in Parliament, if any, in the matter may also be endorsed to the Appellant in accordance with proviso to Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005, for her perusal. The said action be initiated within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order."

Mr. Amit Mahajan, learned CGSC appearing for the petitioner states that in substance there are two directions of the CIC being (i) appellant shall furnish a copy of the reply sent to the respondent herein for her ready

reference; (ii) the statement made in Parliament, if any, in the matter may also be endorsed to the respondent in accordance with the Provision of Section 8 of the RTI Act for her perusal. Mr. Mahajan states that Point no. 1 has been complied with. In so far as the Point No.2 is concerned it is the submission of Mr. Mahajan that no such statement was made in the Parliament. If that be so, it is for the writ petitioner to inform the respondent accordingly.

In so far as the plea of Mr. Mahajan whether the CIC could have given such a direction in the manner it has directed more specifically at Point No.2 above is concerned, the issue raised by Mr. Mahajan is left open to be considered in a more appropriate case.

The writ petitions are disposed of.

CM. No. 9837/2019 in W.P.(C) 2110/2019 CM. No. 9985/2019 in W.P.(C) 2134/2019 Dismissed as infructuous.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J APRIL 11, 2019/jg