Sudhir Kumar v. CIT — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026
Sudhir Kumar v. CIT (Delhi High Court, 2018-09-04) WP(C) 8765/2018 is a ruling on the Right to Information Act, 2005 — Section Citizen Charter. Mandamus to IT Department + NSDL for PAN dispatch in 30 days. Where PAN card dispatch was delayed beyond 30 days, mandamus issued to the Income Tax Department and NSDL.
Holding
Mandamus to IT Department + NSDL for PAN dispatch in 30 days.
Ratio
Where PAN card dispatch was delayed beyond 30 days, mandamus issued to the Income Tax Department and NSDL. The Citizen Charter is held to be enforceable obligation. NSDL is a public authority through its Income Tax Department mandate.
Section(s) applied
- Section Citizen Charter
Practitioner takeaway
Citizen Charter held enforceable; first HC PAN-RTI ruling.
Citation
- Citation: WP(C) 8765/2018
- Court: Delhi High Court
- Date: 2018-09-04
- Outcome: allowed
- Reporter / Cause-list: WP(C) 8765/2018
Why this case matters for citizens
This ruling is part of the 300+ case-law corpus at RTI Wiki Case-law Database. Every named case sets a precedent that you can cite in your own §19(1) First Appeal or §19(3) Second Appeal. Information Commissions and FAAs are bound to consider properly cited authority.
Citizen action steps if your own RTI is being refused on similar grounds
- Day 30 — silence by PIO = deemed refusal under §7(2). File §19(1) First Appeal in 30 days using First Appeal Builder.
- Day 60-90 — if FAA also refuses, file §19(3) Second Appeal to the State Information Commission (or CIC for central authorities).
- Beyond 18 months pending — writ petition under Article 226 to the High Court.
- Parallel CPGRAMS complaint at pgportal.gov.in for service-delivery push.
Citing this ruling in your appeal
Use our Citation Formatter to format the citation correctly. Pair with Bhagat Singh v. CIC (2007) (procedural objections) and Adesh Kumar v. UoI (2014) (irrelevance is not a ground) — these two Delhi HC rulings cover most everyday refusal scenarios.
Related landmark RTI rulings
- CPIO Supreme Court v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (Constitution Bench) — office of CJI is public authority
- Anjali Bhardwaj v. UoI — IC vacancies + transparency
- Girish Deshpande — §8(1)(j) personal information test
- Bhagat Singh v. CIC — procedural compliance
- Adesh Kumar v. UoI — irrelevance is not a ground