Delhi High Court
W.P.(C)/9707/2025 of ANURAG KUMAR Vs THE CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER BANK OF BARODA AND ANR. on 5 October 2026
HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: October 5th, 2026 # CNR No. DLHC010430362025 + W.P.(C) 9707/2025 ANURAG KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Dharma Datta Verma, Mr.Rohit Verma and Mr. Anurag Kumar, Advocates. versus THE CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER BANK OF BARODA AND
$~40
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%
Date of Decision: October 5th, 2026
CNR No. DLHC010430362025
+
W.P.(C) 9707/2025
ANURAG KUMAR
.....Petitioner
Through:
Mr. Dharma Datta Verma,
Mr.Rohit
Verma
and
Mr.
Anurag Kumar, Advocates.
versus
THE CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER
BANK OF BARODA AND ANR.
.....Respondents
Through:
Ms. Anuja Sinha, Advocate for
Bank of Baroda (Through VC).
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The present petition is filed assailing order dated 17.12.2024 (hereinafter ‘impugned order’) passed by the learned Central Information Commission, New Delhi whereby Second Appeal No. CIC/BKOBD/A/2023/148101 and Second Appeal No. CIC/BKOBD/A/2023/147771, filed by the petitioner, were dismissed.
2. Briefly stated, the petitioner was employed at Bank of Baroda, Agra Zone and was subsequently removed from services vide order dated 31.03.2006, owing to disciplinary proceedings against him. The petitioner filed a writ petition, before the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, challenging the said order, which was set aside vide order dated 05.04.2013, giving liberty to the Bank of Baroda to pass fresh orders.
SEHGAL
3. The petitioner was thereafter, once again, terminated from services by Bank of Baroda vide order dated 14.06.2013. The said order was also challenged by the petitioner before the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court and the termination order was set aside vide order dated 13.05.2019. The said order has been challenged by the Bank of Baroda before the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court.
4. The petitioner filed RTI applications dated 01.08.2023 and 02.08.2023 before Respondent No.1 seeking certain information including his service records, personal files, circulars concerning jurisdictional changes and approval notes, related to the appeal filed by the Bank of Baroda.
5. Respondent No.1 vide reply dated 25.08.2023 informed the petitioner that the contents of his “RTI applications was very voluminous, repetitive, ambiguous and in allegation form” which do not come under the purview of RTI Act, 2002. The petitioner was provided a copy of the note sheet wherein the decision to file the special appeal was approved by the competent authority.
6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority, however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 19.12.2023.
7. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order before the Second Appellate Authority which was dismissed vide the impugned order.
8. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition has been filed.
9. At the outset it is pertinent to note that the petitioner was allowed to inspect his personal file available with the bank vide order dated 22.11.2022
in a separate Complaint No.
SEHGAL
CIC/BKOBD/C/2021/123890. It is the stand of the bank that pursuant to the aforesaid order, the petitioner has already been allowed to inspect his entire record including all 17 files available with Bank at its Regional Office, Noida on 17.01.2023.
10. The learned Commission vide the impugned order has also observed that the CPIOs had duly replied to the RTI applications and provided information against the relevant queries. It was further observed that the petitioner’s conduct of filing repeated RTIs amounted to a misuse of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
11. Though the petitioner contends that only irrelevant information has been furnished to him, he has been unable to identify before this Court any specific information sought by him which has not been provided. The petitioner has, instead, made general assertions regarding non-furnishing of his service records, personal files, circulars concerning the jurisdictional change from Agra Zone to Noida Zone, and approval notes relating to the appeal filed by the Bank.
12. The petitioner has already been allowed to inspect his service records available with the Bank. He was also provided with a copy of the note sheet recording the approval of the competent authority for filing the Special Appeal.
13. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate any particular document, which despite being available with the Respondents and being liable to disclosure under the Right to Information Act, 2005, has been withheld. In the absence of any specific identification of the information allegedly withheld, no direction to furnish information can be issued.
14. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no ground warranting
SEHGAL
interference with the impugned order in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
15. The present petition is accordingly dismissed. AMIT MAHAJAN, J OCTOBER 5, 2026 DU Signed By:SHIKHA SEHGAL