VIPIN KUMAR TYAGI vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~45 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5557/2025 & CM APPL. 46546/2025 Date of Decision: 23.03.2026 IN THE MATTER OF: VIPIN KUMAR TYAGI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Srikant Singh, Mr. Abhijit Singh, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Jagdish Chandra CGSC Ms Maanya Saxena, Advocates. Mr. Farman Ali CGSC, Ms Usha Jamnal, Advocates for UOI CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV JUDGEMENT PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL) 1. The petitioner‟s second appeal has been dismissed by the Central Information Commission („CIC‟) vide order dated 28.02.2025 (“Impugned Order”) on the ground of limitation. As per the Impugned Order, the second appeal was filed after a delay of about 437 days. 2. The petitioner seems to have applied for certain information under Right to Information Act, 2005 (“RTI Act”) on 10.12.2022. The CPIO did not respond to the petitioner‟s application then he filed first appeal on 23.01.2023. The CPIO then replied by letter dated 22.02.2024 and sought exemption under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 27.02.2024 upheld the reply filed by CPIO. The Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRIYA Signed Signing Date:28.03.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA 11:08:26 KUMAR KAURAV petitioner approached the CIC in Second Appeal on 03.04.2024 under Section 19(3) of RTI Act. 3. A Second Appeal against the decision the First Appellate Authority shall lie within 90 days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received. 4. In the instant case, the CIC construed the limitation to have begun from the expiry of the date on which the decision should have been taken. However, where an order has been passed by the First Appellate Autho