Prem Chand Gupta and ors. Vs. Chief Postmaster and ors.

Prem Chand Gupta and ors. vs Chief Postmaster and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Aug 12, 2014

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1161305

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1161305
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Suresh Kait
Decided On: Aug 12, 2014
Subject: Right to Information

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Right to Information

Key legal issue: Right to Information

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Prem Chand Gupta and ors.

Respondent

Chief Postmaster and ors.

Excerpt

.....addressed to sub-divisional magistrate (recovery) was issued by sh. g.c. pant, chief post master and also admitted that the information to the petitioner under rti was also given by the same officer.5. accordingly, mr. g.c. pant, chief post master was directed to remain personally present in the court with all relevant records on the next date of hearing to clarify the contradictory communication.6. mr. g.c. pant, chief post master is present in the court and submits that the information under rti act given to the petitioner is due to some communication gap. however, the same may be ignored.7. mr. pant has undertaken not to repeat such type of mistake in future.8. the fact remains that before issuing the recovery certificates the petitioners were not put on notice. no opportunity was given to the petitioners of being heard. it is a violation of natural justice.9. in view of above, recovery notices dated 30.04.2014 is hereby quashed.10. respondent no.1 is directed to pass a fresh order after giving opportunities to the petitioners in accordance with law.11. in view of above, the petition is allowed with no order as to costs.12. i here make it clear that if the petitioners succeed before respondent no.1 that no dues are pending against them, they will have the liberty to sue for the charges / damages incurred in contesting the cases or in getting the information from the respondent no.1. cm. no.8200/2014 with the disposal of the instant petition, instant application has become infructuous and disposed of as such. suresh kait, j august12 2014 jg

Full Judgment

$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:12th August, 2014 % + W.P.(C) 4087/2014 PREM CHAND GUPTA & ORS. ..... Petitioners Represented by: Mr. Sudhir Naagar, Adv. versus CHIEF POSTMASTER & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr. A.K. Gautam and Mr. M.P. Singh, Advs. for R1 and R2. Ms. Sana Ansari, Adv. for R3 with Mr. Parveen Kumar, O/O SDM, Kotwali. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.

(Oral) 1. The petitioners have assailed the order dated 30.04.2014, whereby they were directed to deposit Rs.70,64,623/- by 15.05.2014 failing which action for the realization of the dues will be taken as per Section 67 of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887.

2. On receipt of the aforesaid communication, the petitioners applied under RTI whether the recovery certificate has been issued by the respondent No.1. In response thereto, respondent no.1 replied as under: (i) No such certificate has been issued. (ii) No correspondence has been made for recovery certificate from SDM, Kotwali (iii) No enquiry has been made for recovery certificate (iv) No any official has been issued recovery certificate by the CPM, Delhi, GPO. (v) No any notice has been issued to the applicant and his family members in respect of recovery certificate.

3. This communication has also been issued on behalf of the Chief Post Master/CPIO, Delhi, GPO.

4. On specific enquiry, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 states that the communication dated 29.03.2013 addressed to Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Recovery) was issued by Sh. G.C. Pant, Chief Post Master and also admitted that the information to the petitioner under RTI was also given by the same Officer.

5. Accordingly, Mr. G.C. Pant, Chief Post Master was directed to remain personally present in the Court with all relevant records on the next date of hearing to clarify the contradictory communication.

6. Mr. G.C. Pant, Chief Post Master is present in the Court and submits that the information under RTI Act given to the petitioner is due to some communication gap. However, the same may be ignored.

7. Mr. Pant has undertaken not to repeat such type of mistake in future.

8. The fact remains that before issuing the recovery certificates the petitioners were not put on notice. No opportunity was given to the petitioners of being heard. It is a violation of natural justice.

9. In view of above, recovery notices dated 30.04.2014 is hereby quashed.

10. Respondent No.1 is directed to pass a fresh order after giving opportunities to the petitioners in accordance with law.

11. In view of above, the petition is allowed with no order as to costs.

12. I here make it clear that if the petitioners succeed before respondent No.1 that no dues are pending against them, they will have the liberty to sue for the charges / damages incurred in contesting the cases or in getting the information from the respondent No.1. CM. No.8200/2014 With the disposal of the instant petition, instant application has become infructuous and disposed of as such. SURESH KAIT, J AUGUST12 2014 jg

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2014 Same Parties Prem Chand Gupta and ors. vs Chief Postmaster and ors. Same Subject Right to Information Same Judge Suresh Kait