Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Delhi · body

2025 DAILYLAW 43295 (DEL)

MANEESH KUMAR v. NATIONAL MISSION FOR MANUSCRIPTS & ANR.

W.P.(C)/6039/2025 · 2025-05-07

Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Tushar Rao Gedela

Writ Petition (Civil)body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

$~72. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6039/2025 MANEESH KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Umesh Sharma, Mr. Munish Kumar Gaur, Mr. Ritesh Kumar Kaushik and Mr. Peeyush Kaushik, Advs. versus NATIONAL MISSION FOR MANUSCRIPTS & ANR. .....Respondents Through: CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA O R D E R % 07.05.2025 CM APPL. 27586/2025 (for exemption) 1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 6039/2025 & CM APPL. 27587/2025 (for interim orders) 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. By this petition instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, ostensibly in public interest, the petitioner has made a prayer to issue a direction to the respondent No.1 to comply with the order dated 29.10.2021 passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC) and further initiate prosecution as contemplated under the Right to Information Act, 2005 for violation of the directions of the CIC against the non-compliant officers of the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 00:00:32 respondent No.1 who have failed to comply with the directions of the CIC as contained in its order dated 29.10.2021. 5. It appears that one Mr. Dhavalkumar Kirtikumar Patel had filed Second Appeal before the CIC with the grievance that certain information sought by him is not being provided by the National Mission for Manuscripts/ respondent No.1. 6. The Second Appeal was decided by means of an order dated 29.10.2021 with a direction that the National Mission for Manuscripts shall put in public domain around 03 lakh manuscripts which it has digitized so far within a period of one year and further that the Commission shall allow the appellant of the said second appeal access, including downloading, of 30,000 manuscripts it has already put in public domain out of a total of around 03 lakh manuscripts digitized so far. 7. It is noteworthy that petitioner had neither made any application under the Right to Information Act, nor was a party to the Second Appeal which has been decided by the CIC by means of the order dated 29.10.2021. The said appeal was filed, as already observed above, by one Mr. Dhavalkumar Kirtikumar Patel. If the decision by the CIC has not been complied either partially or wholly, it is the appellant in the Second Appeal who can be said to be aggrieved by such non-compliance of the order passed by the CIC. The consequences of not providing information, as directed either by the Central Commission or by the State Commission are given in Section 20 of the Right to Information Act which makes a provision for imposing penalty to those responsible for non-complying with the directions or decisions given or rendered by either the Central Commission or the State Commission. 8. When the petitioner was confronted with the query as to what is the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 00:00:32 nature of the manuscripts which have been ordered to be put in public domain by the CIC, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner does not have any knowledge of the same. 9. Having regard to the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that if anyone can be said to be aggrieved by non-compliance of the order passed by the CIC, it is the applicant/appellant Mr. Dhavalkumar Kirtikumar Patel who had moved the application under the Right to Information Act and had taken the matter upto the Second Appeal stage before the CIC and not the petitioner. 10. In view of the aforesaid, we are not inclined to interfere in this writ petition which is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J MAY 7, 2025 N.Khanna This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 00:00:32