Lt. Col Naveen Kumar Anand (Retd.) vs.union of India & Ors - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1205888
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided OnMay-11-2017
AppellantLt. Col Naveen Kumar Anand (Retd.)
RespondentUnion of India & Ors
Excerpt:
$~2 *in the high court of delhi at new delhi % + w.p.(c) 3706/2017 judgment delivered on:11. 05.2017 lt. col naveen kumar anand (retd.) ........ petitioner versus union of india & ors advocates who appeared in this case: for the... petitioner : for the respondent : ........ respondents... petitioner in person. none. coram:-"hon’ble mr justice sanjeev sachdeva judgment1105.2017 sanjeev sachdeva, j.(oral) 1. the petitioner, by the present petition, seeks a direction to the respondents to provide information sought for by the petitioner by an application dated 10.02.2017.2. the petitioner, on 10.02.2017, filed an application under the right to information act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the act) with the directorate general (resettlement).3. it is noticed that the said application was sent by post to wp(c) 3706 /2017 page 1 of 2 respondent no.2. within a period of 33 days, the petitioner filed an appeal before the first appellate authority on 15.03.2017.4. contending that the appeal of the petitioner has not been decided by the first appellate authority, the petitioner has filed the present petition on 24.04.2017 i.e. within a period of 46 days of filing the first appeal before the first appellate authority.5. without giving a reasonable time to the authorities to act and without filing an appeal before the central information commission (cic) or an application under section 20 of the act before the cic, the petitioner has filed this petition.6. the petitioner seems to be acting in haste in not giving the authorities sufficient time to even respond to his application or decide his first appeal.7. in my view, the present petition is premature and in the facts not maintainable. the petitioner would have to await the decision of the first appellate authority and, thereafter, take remedies under the act before the cic. at this juncture, i am not inclined to exercise powers under article 226 and entertain this petition.8. the writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. sanjeev sachdeva, j may11 2017 st wp(c) 3706 /2017 page 2 of 2
Judgment:

$~2 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + W.P.(C) 3706/2017 Judgment delivered on:

11. 05.2017 LT. COL NAVEEN KUMAR ANAND (RETD.) ........ Petitioner

versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner

: For the Respondent : ........ RESPONDENTS

... Petitioner

in person. None. CORAM:-

"HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT1105.2017 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.

(ORAL) 1. The petitioner, by the present petition, seeks a direction to the respondents to provide information sought for by the petitioner by an application dated 10.02.2017.

2. The petitioner, on 10.02.2017, filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with the Directorate General (Resettlement).

3. It is noticed that the said application was sent by post to WP(C) 3706 /2017 Page 1 of 2 respondent No.2. Within a period of 33 days, the petitioner filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority on 15.03.2017.

4. Contending that the appeal of the petitioner has not been decided by the First Appellate Authority, the petitioner has filed the present petition on 24.04.2017 i.e. within a period of 46 days of filing the first appeal before the First Appellate Authority.

5. Without giving a reasonable time to the authorities to act and without filing an appeal before the Central Information Commission (CIC) or an application under section 20 of the Act before the CIC, the petitioner has filed this Petition.

6. The petitioner seems to be acting in haste in not giving the authorities sufficient time to even respond to his application or decide his first appeal.

7. In my view, the present petition is premature and in the facts not maintainable. The petitioner would have to await the decision of the First Appellate Authority and, thereafter, take remedies under the Act before the CIC. At this juncture, I am not inclined to exercise powers under Article 226 and entertain this petition.

8. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J MAY11 2017 st WP(C) 3706 /2017 Page 2 of 2