Suraj Mishra, S/O Late Shri Munna Lal vs. Chief Commissioner Of Customs, Delhi Zone

Held

The Court held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. It reasoned that the alleged raid occurred in Delhi, and the petitioner's appeals under the Right to Information Act, 2005, were pending before the Central Information Commission in New Delhi. Therefore, the matter fell outside the territorial purview of the Rajasthan High Court. The Court also noted that the issue of seeking information about the alleged raid was already sub-judice before the Appellate Authority under the RTI Act. While not entertaining the writ petition, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to request the Second Appellate Authority (Central Information Commission) for an expeditious disposal of his pending appeal. The Court did not address the merits of the alleged illegal raid or the petitioner's claims for compensation or action against officers, as these were contingent on the information sought through the RTI process.

Facts

The petitioner, Suraj Mishra, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court seeking details of officers who allegedly conducted an illegal raid at his Delhi residence. He had previously sought this information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, but his request was denied by the Public Information Officer on June 8, 2020. His first appeal against this denial was dismissed by the First Appellate Authority on July 14, 2020. The petitioner then filed a second appeal before the Central Information Commission, New Delhi, which remained undecided. The petitioner argued that he was unable to pursue legal remedies against the officers, as permitted by the Delhi High Court in a Habeas Corpus petition, due to the lack of information. The respondents were the Chief Commissioner of Customs, Delhi Zone, Commissioner of Customs (Jodhpur and Preventive), and an Additional Commissioner of CGST, Jaipur Zone.

Key Issues

1. Whether this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition seeking details of officers who allegedly conducted a raid at the petitioner's residence in Delhi, when the petitioner's RTI appeals are pending before the Central Information Commission in New Delhi and the alleged raid occurred in Delhi. Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contended that he was deprived of his legal remedy to take action against erring officials, as permitted by the Delhi High Court, because the requisite information was not being furnished. He argued that the lack of information prevented him from pursuing his rights. Revenue/State's argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents. However, the Court's reasoning implies that the respondents' actions (denying information) were subject to the RTI Act's appellate process.