AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • Information Act, 2005
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • Information Act, 2005
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    BALRAJ SINGH BUTTAR v. CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

    AT CHANDIGARH

    105 CWP-2989-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 03.02.2025

    BALRAJ SINGH BUTTAR

    ...... Petitioner

    VERSUS

    CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS

    ...... Respondents

    CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

    Present :- Mr. Saurav Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.

    Mr. Gaurav Jindal, Additional AG, Haryana.

    ***

    Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

    1. In the present petition, the grievance being raised by the petitioner is qua the order dated 09.04.2024 (Anneure P-7) passed by the Information Commissioner by which, the second appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 19(3) of The Right to Information Act, 2005 qua the grant of information qua House No.267, Sector 11-A, Chandigarh has been declined.

    2. On being asked to point out the perversity in the said order, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out the same.

    3. The plea of the grant of information has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner is not the actual owner of the said house and therefore, third party information cannot be given. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is an agreement to sell qua the said house.

    1 of 2

    CWP-2989-2025 :2:

    4. It may be noticed that agreement to sell does not create a right in the petitioner to seek information of a third party. In case, the petitioner has any grievance on the basis of the said agreement to sell, he should avail appropriate remedy for the redressal of his grievance before appropriate forum.

    5. Keeping in view the above, no ground is made out for any inference by this Court and present petition is accordingly dismissed.

    6. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

    (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)

    JUDGE

    03.02.2025

    Rimpal Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether Reportable : No

    2 of 2

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    BALRAJ SINGH BUTTAR v. CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
    (Feb 3, 2025)