$~114 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 22nd July, 2026 + CONT.CAS(C) 1245/2026 VARUN KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Santosh, Advocate. (M): 8800504786 Email: santiguls10@gmail.com versus ANIL KUMAR SINGHAL & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Shashi Pratap Singh with Ms. Laqshyaa Saluja, Ms. Anamika Tyagi and Ms. Shagun Sabharwal, Advocates for respondent/DDA. (M): 9560536975 Email: shashipratapadv@gmail.com CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA MINI PUSHKARNA, J (ORAL): 1. The present petition has been filed alleging wilful and deliberate disobedience of the order dated 05th January, 2026, passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 17/2026. 2. It is noted that vide order dated 05th January, 2026, the following directions had been issued: “xxx xxx xxx 7. Upon a careful perusal of the findings rendered by the first Appellate Authority as well as by the second Appellate Authority, what transpires is that the meeting was conducted, where, it was found that the fixed charges are to be recovered from the consumers Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:25.07.2026 10:41:48 Signature Not Verified on the basis of average consumption basis as under: (i) For HIG Flats @ 30 Kl per month (ii) For MIG Flats @25 KI per month (iii) LIG and Janta Flats @20KI per month 8. It is, thus, seen that there is no material placed on record by the respondent Delhi Development Authority (DDA) which would satisfy the request no. 1 of the petitioner’s application which essentially relates to the document/ order prescribing minimum and normal charges of water. 9. There is no reason as to why such a document should not be maintained or kept by the respondent DDA. If any decision is taken which entitles the said authority for levying of particular charge, the same has to be based on some document/order. Even, it is not the specific case of the department that there exist no basis of levying minimum and normal water charges. 10. Under these circumstances, it appears that both the authorities have been misdirected in dealing with the petitioner’s request. 11. Accordingly, the matter is remitted back to the Public Information Officer, DDA, who shall consider the petitioner’s request no.1 made in the application dated 07.12.2023, afresh, and pass appropriate order within a period prescribed under the Right to Information Act, 2005. xxx xxx xxx” 3. Thus, perusal of the aforesaid order shows that the matter was remanded back to the Public Information Officer (“PIO”), Delhi Development Authority (“DDA”), who was directed to consider the request of the petitioner made in the application dated 07th December, 2023 afresh, and thereby, pass appropriate order within the period prescribed under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“RTI Act”). 4. In response, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-DDA submits that after the case was remanded back to the PIO, the application of Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:25.07.2026 10:41:48 Signature Not Verified the petitioner was duly considered in terms of the order dated 05th January, 2026. Subsequently, a reply dated 21st July, 2026 under the RTI Act has been issued to the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-DDA, has handed over to this Court a copy of the reply dated 21st July, 2026, issued by the Office of the Executive Engineer, Northern Maintenance Division No. 3, Ashok Vihar, Phase-1, Delhi-110052, along with the documents, which are taken on record. 6. A copy of the aforesaid has also been handed over to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, who submits that the requisite information has not been provided by the respondent-DDA. 7. If that be the grievance of the petitioner, he is at liberty to seek legal remedies by filing an appeal in terms of the RTI Act in order to procure relevant information, as per the stand taken by the petitioner. 8. Noting the aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of. MINI PUSHKARNA, J JULY 22, 2026 c By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:25.07.2026 10:41:48