JUDGMENT :

CM APPL.16060/2017 (Application for intervention)

1. The present application for intervention is filed in W.P. (C) No. 600 of 2017, wherein the petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.12.2016   passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC). The applicants seek to intervene in order to assist the Court in the adjudication of the legal issues arising in the context of the concerned RTI application in that case.

2. It is submitted that the applicants are eminent RTI activists. It is submitted that the present case raises questions of significant public importance, hence the applicants seek an opportunity to be heard in the present matter.

3. Reliance has been placed on Shri J. R. Anand v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 1981 SCC OnLine Del 43, orders dated 08.11.2016 and 29.11.2016 passed in RFA(OS) 81/2016 titled as The Chancellor, Masters & Scholars of University of Oxford & Ors v. Rameshwari Photocopy Services & Ors , order dated 01.09.2015 passed in W.P.(C) 6010/2014, titled as Vinita Singla v. Union of India & Ors, order dated 21.05.2015 and judgment dated 06.11.2015 passed in W.P.(C) 3386/2015, titled as R.K. Jain & Ors v. Union of India, order dated 14.07.2017 passed in Civil Appeal No. 6083 of 2017 in Indian Wind Power Association (NRC) v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr. and Novartis AG v. Union of India and Others, (2013) 6 SCC 1.

4. While objecting to the intervention application the petitioner has averred that the applicants, contrary to their assertions, fall in the category of “busybody” or “meddlesome interloper”, seeking to intervene for extraneous reasons rather than to assist the Court on question/s of law. Reliance is placed on Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed and Others, 1976 1 SCC 671, wherein the Supreme Court has observed as under –

“37. It will be seen that in the context of locus standi to apply for a writ of    certiorari, an applicant may ordinarily fall in any of these categories: (i) "person aggrieved"; (ii) "stranger"; (iii) busybody or meddlesome interloper. Persons in the last category are easily distinguishable from those coming under the first two categories. Such persons interfere in things which do not concern them. They masquerade as crusaders for justice. They pretend to act in the name of pro bono publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect. They indulge in the pastime of meddling with the judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives. Often, they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity; while the ulterior intent of some applicants in this category, may be no more than spoking the wheels of administration. The High Court should do well to reject the applications of such busybodies at the threshold.”

5. It is submitted that the applicants have no locus standi to intervene in the present proceedings, either on the basis of their averments or the documents relied upon. The applicants are neither aggrieved/interested persons nor necessary or proper parties, but are acting with oblique motives.

6. It is submitted that the mere assertion that the applicants are public- spirited persons interested in the implementation of the Right to Information Act is insufficient to constitute grounds for intervention, as the present lis is in personam and not of a public nature.

7. Having considered the submissions advanced, this Court finds no cogent legal basis or rationale to allow the applicants to intervene in the present case. The petition in question involves a challenge to order/s passed by the CIC in the context of certain RTI application/s. Only the concerned parties would be entitled to agitate the issue of legality (or otherwise) of the impugned order/s. The present petitions do not partake the character of ‘public interest litigation’. The applicants cannot be permitted to join these proceedings since no personal cause of action has accrued in their favour.

8. This Cou