Ram Kumar Aggarwal v. Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & ORS.

$~146 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5241/2026 RAM KUMAR AGGARWAL .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Prateek Jindal, Ms. Simran Bhatti, Advocates.

versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS.

.....Respondent Through:

Ms Jagrati Singh Standing Counsel, Mr. Rajpal, Mr. Surendar Kumar, Mr.

Om Prakash, Mr. Yuvan, Ms.

Bhumika, Advocates for MCD.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

O R D E R

% 20.04.2026 CM APPL. 25715/2026 (EXEMPTION) 1.

Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2.

The application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 5241/2026 3.

The petition is for the following reliefs:

a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus against the Respondent No. 1-4 directing them to provide the information sought by the Petitioner through the RTI bearing Diary No. 637307 Dated:31.07.2023; and b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus against the Respondent No. 4 to impose penalty upon Respondent No. 2-3 as per Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.

c) Issue a Writ of Mandamus against the Respondent No. 4 directing the Respondent No.4 to initiate disciplinary action against Respondent No. 2 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

-3 as per Section 20(2) of the RTI Act, 2005 for violating the Petitioner's fundamental and statutory right to Information. d) Award the Petitioner Compensation and/or Impose penalty upon the Respondent No. 2-3 for violation of Petitioner's fundamental and statutory right to Information.

e) Pass any other or further order as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the Petitioner. 4.

The petitioner claims to be a retired Government Officer. In order to obtain certain public records including the updated layout plan of Prem Nagar/Shakti Nagar, Delhi, the petitioner filed an application dated 12.05.2023 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter "RTI Act") before the concerned Public Information Officer (hereinafter "PIO"). However, no response was furnished.

5.

The petitioner, then, preferred a First Appeal dated 12.06.2023, which was allowed vide order dated 03.07.2023 directing the concerned authority to furnish complete information. However, no compliance was made. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a Second Appeal dated 31.07.2023 before the Central Information Commission (hereinafter "CIC"). 6.

The CIC, vide order dated 23.08.2024, directed the concerned authority to obtain and provide the relevant information to the petitioner. In purported compliance, a reply dated 12.09.2024 was furnished stating that the information was available on the website, allegedly without providing any specific details. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-initiated noncompliance proceedings. The CIC thereafter, vide order dated 17.06.2025, specifically directed the respondents to provide the exact URL/path through which the information could be accessed. Vide response dated 23.06.2025 the respondents allegedly provided only a general link, which did not enable access to the specific information sought.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

7.

The sole grievance of the petitioner is that despite specific directions issued by the CIC, vide order dated 17.06.2025, the complete and accessible information has not been furnished.

8.

The Court is of the considered opinion that the scheme of the RTI Act, 2005 confers adequate and efficacious powers upon the CIC to not only inquire into complaints relating to non-compliance of its orders, but also to secure enforcement thereof, including by resort to the penal and disciplinary provisions contained under Section 20 of the RTI Act. Once the petitioner has already invoked the jurisdiction of the CIC and has initiated noncompliance proceedings, it would be appropriate that the said statutory authority examines the grievance in its entirety within the framework of Section 18 of the RTI, Act 2005.

9.

Accordingly, let the petitioner to re-emphasise the CIC and to provide a copy of this order passed today. On receiving a copy of this order, let the CIC to deal with the petitioner's pending grievance within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10.

With the aforesaid directions and observations, the petition stands disposed of.

11.

All rights and contentions of the parties are left open. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J APRIL 20, 2026 Aks/ss The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.