Full Text
Translation output
3&4 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 1711/2016 & CMAPPL. 7340/2016
GOPAL KRISHAN SHARMA Petitioner
Through: Mr. P.V. Ramana Rao, Advocate.
W.P.(C) 1711/2016 & CMAPPL. 7340/2016
GOPAL KRISHAN SHARMA Petitioner
Through: Mr. P.V. Ramana Rao, Advocate.
VERSUS
THE COMMISSIONER (EDMC) & ORS Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajan Tyagi, Advocate for respondent No.1 with Mr. Ajay Kumar
Gupta, (Z.I. House Tax).
Through: Mr. Rajan Tyagi, Advocate for respondent No.1 with Mr. Ajay Kumar
Gupta, (Z.I. House Tax).
AND
W.P.(C) 1714/2016 & CMAPPL. 7349/2016
GIRISH CHANDER SHARMA Petitioner
Through: Mr. P.V. Ramana Rao, Advocate.
GIRISH CHANDER SHARMA Petitioner
Through: Mr. P.V. Ramana Rao, Advocate.
VERSUS
THE COMMISSIONER (EDMC) & ORS Respondents
Through: Mr Parvinder Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No. 1.
Through: Mr Parvinder Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No. 1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
17.03.2016 Present writ petitions have been filed primarily challenging the orders dated 05^^ January, 2015 and 20^'' November, 2014 passed by the Central
Information Commission (for short 'CIC') whereby the appeals filed by the
2016:DHC:9058 petitioners were disposed of with directions to the respondents to allow inspection of relevant records pertaining to properties bearing No.45, 46, 46/1, New Krishna Nagar, Delhi and to provide photocopies ofthe same if the petitioners so desire.
Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners are entitled to certified copies of the documents under Section 2(j)(ii) of the Right to
Information Act, 2005 (forshort 'Act, 2005').
Learned counsel for respondent No.1, who appear on advance notice, state that the interest ofthe petitioners have been fully protected by the CIC inasmuch as the petitioners have been allowed inspection ofall the relevant records and they have been given liberty to obtain photocopies of the documents they desire. They further state that whatever document is supplied to the petitioners shall bear a stamp "copies supplied under RTI
Act" and the said stamp constitutes acertified copy under the Act, 2005.
Having heard the learned counsel for parties, this Court is ofthe view that petitioners are entitled to certified copies of the documents under the
Act, 2005.
However, as the learned counsel for respondent No.1 have clarified that certified copies under the Act, 2005 constitutes only photocopies of documents bearing the stamp "copies supplied under the RTI Act", this
Court directs the respondents to followthe said procedure with regard to the request filed by the petitioners.
Needless to say, the certified copies of only the documents that are available in the file shall be furnished to the petitioners and that too after payment of the costs prescribed in the Rules and Regulations of the respondents.
Before parting with the present cases, this Court deems it necessary to mention that certain bald allegations of collusion have been made against respondents No.2 and 3 as well as CIC and Commissioners of the
Corporations, which are in extremely poor taste and are rejected with the contempt that they deserve.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, present writ petition and applications stand disposed of. ti
MANMOHAN, J MARCH 17,2016 js
17.03.2016 Present writ petitions have been filed primarily challenging the orders dated 05^^ January, 2015 and 20^'' November, 2014 passed by the Central
Information Commission (for short 'CIC') whereby the appeals filed by the
2016:DHC:9058 petitioners were disposed of with directions to the respondents to allow inspection of relevant records pertaining to properties bearing No.45, 46, 46/1, New Krishna Nagar, Delhi and to provide photocopies ofthe same if the petitioners so desire.
Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners are entitled to certified copies of the documents under Section 2(j)(ii) of the Right to
Information Act, 2005 (forshort 'Act, 2005').
Learned counsel for respondent No.1, who appear on advance notice, state that the interest ofthe petitioners have been fully protected by the CIC inasmuch as the petitioners have been allowed inspection ofall the relevant records and they have been given liberty to obtain photocopies of the documents they desire. They further state that whatever document is supplied to the petitioners shall bear a stamp "copies supplied under RTI
Act" and the said stamp constitutes acertified copy under the Act, 2005.
Having heard the learned counsel for parties, this Court is ofthe view that petitioners are entitled to certified copies of the documents under the
Act, 2005.
However, as the learned counsel for respondent No.1 have clarified that certified copies under the Act, 2005 constitutes only photocopies of documents bearing the stamp "copies supplied under the RTI Act", this
Court directs the respondents to followthe said procedure with regard to the request filed by the petitioners.
Needless to say, the certified copies of only the documents that are available in the file shall be furnished to the petitioners and that too after payment of the costs prescribed in the Rules and Regulations of the respondents.
Before parting with the present cases, this Court deems it necessary to mention that certain bald allegations of collusion have been made against respondents No.2 and 3 as well as CIC and Commissioners of the
Corporations, which are in extremely poor taste and are rejected with the contempt that they deserve.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, present writ petition and applications stand disposed of. ti
MANMOHAN, J MARCH 17,2016 js
JUDGMENT