PRATIK CHAUDHARY & ANR. vs REGISTRAR CUM PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER

Judgment text excerpt

$~30 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 14337/2023 Date of Decision: 11.03.2026 PRATIK CHAUDHARY & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Shubham Tyagi, Adv. versus REGISTRAR CUM PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER .....Respondent Through: Mr. Advitiya Awasthi, Mr. Devjeet Brahmand, Advocates. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV JUDGEMENT PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL) 1. The petition is for setting aside the order dated 20.04.2023 passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC) in second appeal with respect to the petitioner’s RTI application dated 08.12.2022. 2. It appears that the application dated 08.12.2022 was made to the respondent for information regarding the recruitment of certain employee of Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh. 3. Therefore, it is seen that the sole reason for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court is that one of the impugned orders has been passed by the CIC which is situated within the jurisdiction of this Court. However, the material, integral, and essential part of the cause of action is the original application, Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRIYA Signed Signing Date:13.03.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA 15:14:58 KUMAR KAURAV which was made to the University which is situated outside the jurisdiction of this Court. Merely, the CIC being situated in Delhi, cannot be the sole determinative factor for entertaining the instant petition. 4. The aforesaid is the position taken by the Court in the case of Indure Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.1 in paragraphs no. 36 to 38, which are reproduced below, for reference: “36. A petitioner who approaches this Court to assail a decision of an authority situated in Delhi, when the underlying cause for the said decision lies elsewhere, effectiv