LAWS(DLH)-2017-4-44

VIKAS VERMA Vs. DIRECTOR (MRTS) AND CPIO

Decided On April 12, 2017
Vikas Verma Appellant
V/S
Director (Mrts) And Cpio Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Letters Patent Appeal is filed seeking to impugn the order dated 02.03.2016 by which order the learned Single Judge of this court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant seeking a writ of mandamus/directions to the respondent to furnish a copy of the Enquiry Committee's report which was constituted to look into the defects in the civil structure of Delhi Airport Metro Express Line and to set aside the order dated 04.02.2015 passed by the Central Information Commission denying the said report.

(2.) The relevant facts are that the respondent constituted a two-member Enquiry Committee to enquire into the defects in the civil structure of Delhi Airport Metro Express Line. A Report is said to have been submitted to the respondent on 30.03.2013 or thereabouts. The appellant is an employee of Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. On 13.05.2014, he made an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the RTI Act) before the concerned Central Public Information Officer and sought copy of the report, copies of all the correspondence between the respondent and the Enquiry Committee and inspection of the records. The concerned Central Public Information Officer rejected the request of the appellant under Sec. 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act on the ground that various issues relating to the information which was sought by the appellant had been put before the Empowered Groups of Ministers (EGoM) on Mass Rapid Transit System (MRTS) for its consideration and directions.

(3.) The appellant aggrieved by the said letter dated 29.05.2014 filed an appeal before the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority by its order dated 10.07.2014 rejected the appeal of the appellant. The appellant thereafter filed a second appeal under Sec. 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Central Information Commission (CIC). CIC by its order dated 04.02.2015 rejected the appeal.