Central Information Commission
Yogesh Mahajan vs High Court Of Delhi on 17 July, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/HCDEL/A/2024/657857
Shri Yogesh Mahajan ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
High Court Of Delhi
Date of Hearing : 15.07.2025
Date of Decision : 15.07.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 22.08.2024
PIO replied on : 03.09.2024
First Appeal filed on : 20.09.2024
First Appellate Order on : 30.09.2024
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : Nil
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.08.2024 seeking information on following points:-
"1 Please provide the current Court Fees for the following categories of filings before the High Court: • Civil Writ Petition • Criminal Writ Petition • Criminal Miscellaneous Application • Civil Misc Application • Urgent Application • Annexures per page • Bail Application • First Appeal Order (FAO) • Letters Patent Appeal ( LPA) • Review Petition • Regular First Appeal (RFA) • Regular Second Appeal ( RSA) • Transfer Petition Civil & Criminal • Any other Matter filed before the High Court 2 Kindly provide a comprehensive list of the nomenclature of the all type of cases filed before the Delhi High Court."
The CPIO vide letter dated 03.09.2024 replied as under:-
Page 1 "Point No. 1:-You may refer to the Stamp Duty Registration Fees & Court Fees in Delhi and the Court Fees Act, 1870, Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules 2018 and Delhi High Court Rules & Orders Vol. (IV & V).
Point No. 2:-The list of nomenclature of all type of cases filed in this Court is available on the official website of this Court i.e. www.delhihighcourt.nic.in under the head "Judgment>Case Number>Case Type".
Your instant application seeking information under RTI Act, 2005 stands replied. No further correspondence in the matter will be entertained in the RTI Cell, Delhi High Court.
In terms of Section 19 of the Right to Information Act 2005, in case you are not satisfied with the information given above, you are at liberty to file an appeal in form 'F' as prescribed in the Delhi High Court (Right to Information) Rules 2006, to the Appellate Authority i.e. Registrar (IT), Third Floor, Administrative Block, Delhi High Court, New Delhi, within thirty days of the receipt of this order.
The Delhi High Court (Right to Information) Rules 2006 are available on the website delhihighcourt.nic.in of this Court"
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.09.2024. The FAA vide order dated 30.09.2024 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submission dated 07.07.2025 has been received from the Appellant and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Not present Respondent: Mr. Vikas Saddi, DR, Mr. Sanjoy Kumar Ojha, AR, Ms. Gunjan Sindwanii, AOJ, Mr. Naveen Kumar, SJA, Mr. Ankur, JA, Mr. Shohit Chaudhary, Advocate-participated in the hearing.
The Respondent stated that the relevant information from their records has been duly provided to the Appellant. They averred that information sought by the Appellant is already available in public domain and can be easily accessed by any person.
Decision:
Commission, after perusal of case records and submissions made during hearing, observes that the Appellant has sought information related to court fees and comprehensive list of the nomenclature of all types of cases filed Page 2 before the Delhi High Court. It is noted that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent in this regard. No legal infirmity is found in the response furnished by the Respondent. Thus, the Commission is of the considered opinion that no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)