Delhi High Court
Lt. Col Naveen Kumar Anand vs Union Of India & Ors. on 16 September, 2016
$~53
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 16.09.2016
+ W.P.(C) 8143/2016
LT. COL NAVEEN KUMAR ANAND ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Petitioner in person.
For the Respondent: Mr. Jasmeet Singh, CGSC with Ms.
Gayatri Aryan and Mr. Saurabh
Tiwari, Advocates for respondent
No.1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
% 16.09.2016
The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking a
mandamus to the respondents to comply with the order of the Central
Information Commission dated 10.08.2016, by which the respondent
No.2 has been directed to furnish information to the petitioner. The
petitioner submits that it took the petitioner three years to get a
direction directing the respondents to furnish information. It is
contended that the respondent No.2 has failed to furnish information
in terms of the directions of the Central Information Commission
dated 10.08.2016. The petitioner seeks enforcement of the order
dated 10.08.2016 as well as initiation of proceedings under Section 20
of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
In my view, the petition is not maintainable. The petitioner has
to approach the Central Information Commission for enforcement of
its orders. Reference may be had to Central Information Commission
(Management) Regulations, 2007, and, more particularly, Regulation
4(15) which lays down the powers and functions of the Registrar and
it specifies that the Registrar shall be responsible for compliance of
the order, directions or decision passed by the Commission and to take
all necessary steps in that regard.
Furthermore, the petitioner can always approach the Central
Information Commission under Section 20 of the Right to Information
Act, 2005, if the petitioner is aggrieved by an action of the
respondents in failing to comply with the directions of the Central
Information Commission. Learned counsel for the respondents
submits that the directions of the Central Information Commission
have already been complied with. Without going into the
controversy whether the directions of the Central Information
Commission have been complied with or not, in my view, this Court
cannot be converted into an executing Court for executing the order of
the Central Information Commission. The Act and Regulations
provide sufficient remedies to a petitioner for seeking enforcement of
the order passed in his favour. There is no order by which the
petitioner is aggrieved or which is impugned in the present petition.
The petitioner is merely seeking enforcement of an order and
initiation of proceedings for alleged non-compliance thereof. The
petitioner, in the first instance, should exhaust the remedies provided
under the Statute.
In my view, the present petition is not maintainable. The same
is, accordingly, dismissed.
It is clarified that no opinion is being expressed on the merits of
the petition.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
SEPTEMBER 16, 2016
st
