Sushila Rani vs Central Public Information Officer Of The State Bank Of India, Swamih Investment Fund-I, C/O Sbicap Ventures Ltd, Mumbai

Court
Delhi High Court
Case type
Writ Petition Civil
Decided on
12-03-2026

$~52
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4353/2025
Date of Decision: 12.03.2026

IN THE MATTER OF:

SUSHILA RANI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Aishvary Vikram, Ms. Navya
Bhagat, Mr.Lucky Sharma,
Advocates.

versus

CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE STATE
BANK OF INDIA, SWAMIH INVESTMENT FUND-I, C/O
SBICAP VENTURES LTD, MUMBAI .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Nikhil Mehndiratta, Adv.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

JUDGEMENT

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)


1. The present petition challenges the order dated 22.02.2025, passed by
the Central Information Commission, in the Second Appeal preferred by the
petitioner under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (‘ RTI
Act ’).
2. It appears that the petitioner, a resident of Noida, U.P., had originally
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:17.03.2026
12:31:14

preferred an RTI application before the Central Public Information Officer
of the State Bank of India, Swamih Investment Fund, Mumbai, seeking
information regarding various aspects of the Gayatri Aura project, Greater
Noida West, Uttar Pradesh. Being aggrieved by the non-disclosure of the
respondent-authority, a first appeal was, thereafter, preferred under Section
19(1) of the RTI Act, before the First Appellate Authority of the Swamih
Investment Fund, Mumbai. Upon an order not being passed purportedly
passed within the timelines mandated by the RTI Act, the petitioner
preferred a Second Appeal before the Central Information Commission,
which passed the impugned order 22.02.2025.
3. In Siddartha S. Mookerjee and Anr. v. Madhab Chand Mitter and
1
Anr. , the Supreme Court was moved to assail an order of this Court,
whereby notice was issued in a petition, filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution, challenging an order passed by the National Consumer Dispute
Redressal Commission at New Delhi (‘ NCDRC ’). The facts in that case
were, that originally, a complaint was filed before the District Consumer
Dispute Redressal Forum at Kolkata, which was rejected vide order dated
13.10.2017. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was filed before the State
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal at Kolkata, which
was allowed vide order dated 13.02.2020. Dissatisfied by the said order,
review petitions were preferred before the NCDRC, which were in turn
allowed.
4. On the sole ground that the NCDRC, which is the authority that
passed the impugned order, is situated in Delhi, the jurisdiction of this Court
was invoked, and notice in the said petition was issued. While allowing the
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:17.03.2026
12:31:14

appeal, and disposing of the writ petitions filed before this Court, the
Supreme Court noted that it cannot be a ground to move the Delhi High
Court. The material portion of the judgement reads as under:
“8. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 contends that the
jurisdictional High Court in the instant case ought to be treated as the
High Court of Delhi, inasmuch as the judgment impugned before the
High Court was passed by the NCDRC at Delhi.
9. In our opinion, that can hardly be treated as a ground to invoke the
jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi. The respondent No. 1 ought to
have approached the High Court of Calcutta being aggrieved by the
impugned judgment as the entire cause of action in the present case has
arisen in Kolkata, where the patient was operated for ovarian cancer
on 24th February, 2012, and expired on 30 th July, 2014. The
complaint case was filed at Kolkata based on the aforesaid cause of
action. Merely, because the NCDRC has allowed the revision petitions
filed by the appellants and the respondent no. 2 would not be a ground
to vest jurisdiction in the High Court of Delhi.
10. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The petitions filed before the
High Court of Delhi are disposed of with liberty granted to the
respondent no. 1 to approach the High Court of Calcutta for seeking
appropriate relief. In the event the respondent no. 1 files a petition
before the High Court of Calcutta within four weeks from today, the
appellant herein shall not raise any objection as to the maintainability
of the said petition on the ground of limitation. It is further directed
that in this duration, the appellants shall not rely on the order passed
by the NCDRC.”

5. The principle of Siddartha S. Mookerjee and Anr. , (supra) applies
with full force to the facts of the instant case. The material, essential and
integral cause of action has arisen outside the territorial jurisdiction of this
Court. Even if it is considered that a part of cause of action may have arisen
in Delhi, however, the same should not be the sole reason to entertain the
instant petition.
6. The Supreme Court in the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v.

1
2024 SCC OnLine SC 4285
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:17.03.2026
12:31:14

2
Union of India and Anr. , has held that even if a small part of cause of
action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by
itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the
High Court to decide the matter on merit. In appropriate cases, the Court
may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine
of forum conveniens . The material portion of the aforenoted decision reads
as under:
“Forum conveniens
30. We must, however, remind ourselves that even if a small part of
cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High
Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative
factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merit. In
appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary
jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens. [See Bhagat
Singh Bugga v. Dewan Jagbir Sawhney [AIR 1941 Cal 670 : ILR
(1941) 1 Cal 490] , Madanlal Jalan v. Madanlal [(1945) 49 CWN 357 :
AIR 1949 Cal 495] , Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Jharia Talkies & Cold
Storage (P) Ltd. [1997 CWN 122] , S.S. Jain & Co. v. Union of
India [(1994) 1 CHN 445] and New Horizons Ltd. v. Union of
India [AIR 1994 Del 126] .]”

7. In view of the above, the petition stands dismissed. Liberty is,
however, granted in favour of the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional
High Court to agitate the instant lis , if so advised.
8. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open.

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
MARCH 12, 2026/P


2
(2004) 6 SCC 254.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:17.03.2026
12:31:14