CWP-3659- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA (205) Kulbhushan Jain Union of India CORAM: Present: KULDEEP TIWARI 1. communications dated 07.11.2019 and 28.11.2019 (Annexures P made by the Deputy Registrar, Central Information Commission wherethrough, certain objections were raised on second appeal preferred by the 2. Information Commission, New Delhi, reflects that the petitioner was required to submit the second appeal/complaint extent that HDFC Bank Limited, documents as pe (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act of 2005’). -2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Kulbhushan Jain Versus Union of India and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Dr. Deepak Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Bhatia, Sr. Standing Counsel for respondents No.1 to 3-Union of India. Mr. Abhinav Sood, Advocate and Mr. Sayyam Garg, Advocate for respondents No.4 and 5. **** KULDEEP TIWARI, J.(ORAL) Through the instant writ petition, challenge is thrown to the communications dated 07.11.2019 and 28.11.2019 (Annexures P made by the Deputy Registrar, Central Information Commission wherethrough, certain objections were raised on second appeal preferred by the petitioner. Perusal of the objections, as raised by the Registry of Information Commission, New Delhi, reflects that the petitioner was required submit the second appeal/complaint with justification and declaration HDFC Bank Limited, is a public authority, along with supporting documents as per Section 2 (h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act of 2005’). 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-3659-2021 Date of Decision : 16.09.2025 …Petitioner ...Respondents KULDEEP TIWARI Mr. Sandeep Bhatia, Sr. Standing Counsel Union of India. Abhinav Sood, Advocate and Through the instant writ petition, challenge is thrown to the communications dated 07.11.2019 and 28.11.2019 (Annexures P-5 and P- made by the Deputy Registrar, Central Information Commission, New Delhi wherethrough, certain objections were raised on second appeal/complaint Perusal of the objections, as raised by the Registry of Central Information Commission, New Delhi, reflects that the petitioner was required with justification and declaration to the public authority, along with supporting 2 (h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act of 2005’). Through the instant writ petition, challenge is thrown to the -7), , New Delhi, /complaint Central Information Commission, New Delhi, reflects that the petitioner was required the public authority, along with supporting 2 (h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 MANPREET SINGH 2025.09.17 18:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-3659- 3. (supra), raised by the Registry Delhi, has filed the instant writ petition, challenging the communications (supra). 4. is in fact, a misconceived compliance, as desired by the New Delhi. 5. 6. compliance to the objections (supra), the Registrar, Central Information Commission, New Delhi, shall take apt decision, in accordance with law. 7. September 16 Manpreet -2021 The petitioner, instead of making compliance to the objections (supra), raised by the Registry of Central Information Commission, New has filed the instant writ petition, challenging the communications This Court is of the considered opinion that instant writ petition, is in fact, a misconceived motion. The petitioner, compliance, as desired by the Registry of Central Information Commission, Consequently, the instant writ petition is In case, the petitioner files such an application, and makes compliance to the objections (supra), the Registrar, Central Information mmission, New Delhi, shall take apt decision, in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. 16, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 2 The petitioner, instead of making compliance to the objections Central Information Commission, New has filed the instant writ petition, challenging the communications This Court is of the considered opinion that instant writ petition, . The petitioner, ought to have made Registry of Central Information Commission, Consequently, the instant writ petition is disposed of. In case, the petitioner files such an application, and makes compliance to the objections (supra), the Registrar, Central Information mmission, New Delhi, shall take apt decision, in accordance with law. (KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No The petitioner, instead of making compliance to the objections Central Information Commission, New has filed the instant writ petition, challenging the communications This Court is of the considered opinion that instant writ petition, made Registry of Central Information Commission, In case, the petitioner files such an application, and makes compliance to the objections (supra), the Registrar, Central Information MANPREET SINGH 2025.09.17 18:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment