$~J * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment pronounced on: 25.08.2025 + W.P.(C) 600/2017 and CM APPLs.6048/2018, 7942/2018, 18395/2018, 34218/2023 UNIVERSITY OF DELHI .....Petitioner versus NEERAJ & ANR .....Respondents + W.P.(C) 1051/2017 and CM APPL.4783/2017 CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION .....Petitioner versus MOHD NAUSHADUDIN AND ORS. .....Respondents + W.P.(C) 1077/2017 and CM APPL.4945/2017 UNIVERSITY OF DELHI .....Petitioner versus MOHD IRSAD AND ANR .....Respondents + W.P.(C) 1091/2017 and CM APPL.5003/2017 UNIVERSITY OF DELHI .....Petitioner versus R K JAIN AND ANR .....Respondents + W.P.(C) 1095/2017 and CM APPL.5012/2017 UNIVERSITY OF DELHI .....Petitioner versus SANJAY SINGH AND ANR .....Respondents + W.P.(C) 13568/2023 MOHD. IRSAD .....Petitioner versus CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER & ANR.

.....Respondents Presence Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General (SG) along with Mr. Anil Soni, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Rajat Nair, Mr. Dhruv Pande, Mr. Devvrat Yadav, Ms. Akshaja Singh and Mr. Alok Dubey, Advocates for petitioners in W.P.(C) 600/2017, W.P.(C) 1051/2017, W.P.(C) 1077/2017, W.P.(C) 1091/2017 and W.P.(C) 1095/2017.

Mr. Sanjay Hegde, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Rishikesh Kumar, Ms. Sheenu Priya and Mr. Aman Kumar, Advocates for R-1 in W.P.(C)

600/2017.

Mr. Rahul Mehra, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Shadan Farasat, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Rishikesh Kumar, Mr. Chaitanya Gosain, Mr. Pranny Dhawan and Ms.

Sheenu Priya, Advocates for R-1 in W.P.(C) 1077/2017.

Mr. Rahul Mehra, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Rishikesh Kumar, Mr. Chaitanya Gosain and Ms. Sheenu Priya, Advocates for R-1 in W.P.(C) 1095/2017.

Mr. Shadan Farasat, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Rishikesh Kumar, Mr. Pranav Dhawan and Ms. Sheenu Priya, Adv. for petitioner in W.P.(C)

13568/2023.

Mr. Trideep Pias, Sr. Advocate along with Ms. Seema Misra, Advocate for Intervenors in W.P.(C) 600/2017.

Ms. Sheenu Priya, Advocate for R-1 in W.P.(C) 600/2017, W.P.(C)

1077/2017, W.P.(C) 1095/2017.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA

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 ag