If the grievance of the petitioner is that the information sought for by the petitioner under the RTI Act has not been supplied to the petitioner, the RTI Act itself gives an adequate alternate efficacious remedy against the said denial. The petitioner gives no reason for availing such remedy as held by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi through a learned bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Navin Chawla in the case of Pardeep Vs The Director General & Ors.[ W.P.(C) 13388/2021].
This petition had been filed by the petitioner praying for a direction to the respondents to provide copies of examination result pertaining to the petitioner. It was the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was discharged from services as Constable in the Railway Protection Force, without any reason, though he had performed his duties. When the petitioner challenged the said order of discharge by way of a writ petition being WP(C) No.7645/2020, the respondents stated that the petitioner could not qualify even in the second attempt of the examination. Though the petitioner objected to the said statement and categorically submitted that he never appeared in the second attempt of the examination and even the marks of the first examination were not disclosed to him, the said writ petition was dismissed by this Court. The petitioner thereafter applied under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) seeking answer sheets of the examinations as well as register by which the petitioner performed his duties at Gorakhpur from 05.08.2020 to 14.08.2020, however, the respondents by one or other reasons have not provided the same.
After hearing the parties and a perusal of the record, the Hon’ble High Court observed that the petition was woefully short of giving complete particulars of the examination in question and the relevance thereof. For the said purpose, one has necessarily to refer to the order dated 08.10.2020 passed by this Court in the earlier petition filed by the petitioner being WP(C) No.7645/2020, which in turn also noticed that the said petition also appeared to be intentionally drafted with confusing pleas and averments to create confusion and to have notice issued thereon and press for interim stay.
The relevant observation of the court was reproduced and it was noted and observed that the said order had also rejected the claim of the petitioner on merits. Therefore, the Hon’ble High Court said that the present petition is merely an attempt of the petitioner to have ‘second bite at the cherry’ and I was stated that “Even otherwise, if the grievance of the petitioner is that the information sought for by the petitioner under the RTI Act has not been supplied to the petitioner, the RTI Act itself gives an adequate alternate efficacious remedy against the said denial. The petitioner gives no reason for availing such remedy. This Court, therefore, does not find any reason to exercise its extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction in the facts of the present petition.”
Judgment Reviewed by – Aryan Bajaj