[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Prem Prakash Shokeen vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 16 March, 2026
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
$~124
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3319/2026
Date of Decision: 16.03.2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
PREM PRAKASH SHOKEEN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Puneet Singh Bindra with Mr.
Vivek Kadyan, Ms. Charu Modi, Mr.
Devang Gupta, Ms. Nidhi, Mr. Ikjot
Gaba, Advocates.
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
.....Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
JUDGEMENT
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
1. The instant petition is for the following reliefs:-
"a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction quashing the order dated 18.11.2025 passed by the Central
Information Commission in File No. CIC / REVDP /A / 2024 / 116328, as
being arbitrary, non-speaking, and contrary to the provisions of the RTI
Act;
b) Issue a writ of mandamus directing Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to permit
the Petitioner to inspect the complete files, notings, and correspondence
concerning the implementation of the Svamitva Yojana Scheme in Delhi,
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:19.03.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
17:35:52
KUMAR KAURAV
as referred to in the Petitioner's RTI application dated 03.10.2023,
within a time bound period, and to supply certified copies of documents
identified by the Petitioner during such inspection, free of cost;
c) Quash and set aside the order dated 19.04.2024 passed by the First
Appellate Authority, Revenue Department, GNCTD, and the reply dated
07.11.2023 issued by the PIO, Revenue Department (Land Branch), to
the extent they deny information to the Petitioner by invoking section 7(9)
of the RTI Act;
d) Direct the Respondents to disclose at least a status note and reasons
recorded in official files regarding non-implementation or delay in
implementation of Svamitva Yojana in Delhi, subject only to legitimate
exemptions under sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act, if any, with reasons
recorded in writing for any redactions;
e) Grant appropriate compensation to the Petitioner under section 19 (8)
(b) of the RTI Act and/or under Articles 226/32 of the Constitution for
harassment, mental agony, time and expense incurred due to prolonged
and unjustified denial of information, and direct that the said
compensation and costs be recovered from the erring officers personally.
f) Direct issuance of appropriate directions/circulars to PIOs, FAAs and
departments under the GNCTD emphasizing (i) correct interpretation of
section 7 (9) of the RTI Act , (ii) the duty under sections 4 and 25 of the
RTI Act to proactively disclose and monitor information, and (iii) special
care and facilitation in dealing with RTI applications and appeals filed
by senior citizens;
g) Pending disposal of the petition, direct Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to
preserve all files and records concerning the implementation of Svamitva
Yojana in Delhi and specifically those covered by the RTI dated
03.10.2023;
h) Award costs of the present petition in favour of the Petitioner and
against the Respondents; and
i) Pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit
and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of
justice."
2. The facts of the case would indicate that the petitioner submitted an
Right to Information (RTI) application to PIO, Office of Chief Secretary,
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:19.03.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
17:35:52
KUMAR KAURAV
GNCTD on 03.10.2023. Vide the said application, following information has
been sought:
"I would like to request information under the Right to Information Act
regarding the efforts made by the Delhi Government to implement the
'Svamitva Yojana Scheme', which is sponsored by the Prime Minister of
the Government of Indio. Additionally, I am interested in understanding
the current status of the implementation of this scheme. Hence, I am
seeking access to the relevant correspondence files within your offices.
The reason for my request is the significant economic challenges faced
by the residents of Delhi due to the non-implementation of this scheme.
In the course of reviewing the file, if necessary, I would also like to
obtain copies of any pertinent correspondence contained within it. I am
willing to pay any charges that may be required in accordance with the
Right to Information Act."
3. It appears that on 07.11.2023, the PIO, Revenue Department (Land
Branch) issued a reply stating that the information regarding Svamitva
Yojana is a "policy matter" and cannot be provided at that stage under
Section 7(9) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 („RTI Act'). It, however,
be noted that neither any exemption under Sections 8 or 9 of the RTI Act
was invoked nor was any option of inspection was offered.
4. For the sake of clarity Section 7(9) of the RTI Act is extracted as
under:-
"7. ....
.....
(9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is
sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the
public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of
the record in question."
5. It is, thus, seen that ordinarily, the information is to be provided in the
form in which it is sought unless, it would disproportionately divert the
resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:19.03.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
17:35:52
KUMAR KAURAV
preservation of the record in question. It would thus appear that Section 7(9)
of the RTI Act has wrongly been invoked by respondent-authority.
Unfortunately, the First Appellate Authority, as well as, the Second
Appellate Authority have also lost sight of the aforesaid provision.
6. The respondent-authority under sub-section 9 of Section 7 of the RTI
Act is not empowered to deny any information. In fact, sub-section 9 of
Section 7 of the RTI Act empowers the respondent-authority either to
provide the information in the form, in which it is sought or to furnish the
same, in any other manner.
7. The exemption from disclosure of the information is envisaged under
Section 8 of the RTI Act and the said Section has not been invoked in the
instant case.
8. For all the aforesaid reasons, the Court finds that the orders passed by
the original authority, First Appellate Authority as well as the Second
Appellate Authority, deserve to be set aside. Accordingly, the same are set
aside.
9. The matter is directed to be remitted back to the original authority i.e.
PIO before whom the application dated 03.10.2023 was filed, for its fresh
disposal in accordance with law.
10. With the aforesaid observations, the instant petition stands disposed
of.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
MARCH 16, 2026
Nc
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:19.03.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
17:35:52
KUMAR KAURAV
