welcome to Miscellaneous (Law of Precedence, Compliant and Appeal, Freedom of Speech, Transparency in admission/selection) | Institute of Secretariat Training & Management

S.No.	HIGH COURT CASE	DATE OF JUDGMENT	JUDGMENT
46	C.W.P. No. 18694 of 2011. [O&M] HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA (176.44 KB)	01 Dec, 2011	Dalbir Singh Versus Chief Information Commissioner, Haryana & Ors. The information regarding the marks obtained by the selected candidates in their academic qualifications and interview has been denied to the petitioner only on the ground that the information sought is quite bulky. The High Court Ordered that, The respondent – Commission should supply the information to the petitioner at his expenses.
47	CWP No. 5456 of 2011 HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA (62.84 KB)	08 Nov, 2011	Karamjit Singh and others Versus State Information Commission, Punjab and another The petitioners filed this petition seeking quashing of the order of SIC whereby respondent while dismissing the complaint filed by petitioner No.1 seeking information under the RTI Act, has directed the Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab to take action against the petitioners. The High Court set aside the Order of SIC.
48	Civil Writ Petition No.16419 of 2011 HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA (119.01 KB)	05 Sep, 2011	Randhir Singh Saroha Versus State Information Commissioner, Haryana and others The petitioner is aggrieved by an order passed by the Chief Information Commissioner, Haryana, failing to impose fine upon respondents for furnishing incomplete information. The petitioner is advised to approach the State Information Commissioner, Haryana, by way of an appropriate application, with respect to the compliance report.
49	L.P.A. No. 543 of 2009 HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI (82.84 KB)	11 Jul, 2011	The Commissioner (Appeal) of Central Excise and Service Tax, Ranchi Vs. Information Commissioner,. The grievance of the appellant is that in a proceeding under the Right To Information Act, the authorities could not have directed for re-constitution of the records and then give the information to the applicant.The High Court held that, the direction to reconstitute the record is only a one step in furtherance of providing the information to the applicant under the Right To Information Act and there is no illegality in that direction. The Petition dismissed by the Court.
50	S.C.A. No. 4430 of 2011 HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT, AHMEDABAD (236.60 KB)	19 Apr, 2011	NAFIS AHMED M ISHFAQUE CHHIPA THE AHMEDABAD GUJRI ASSOCIATION Versus COMMISSIONER - STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION The High Court held that ,for the purpose of implementation and execution of the order, the petitioner may take appropriate steps and action as may be available under law including Section 20 of the Act. The prerogative writ and powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be permitted to be invoked for implementing the order passed by the authority under the Act. Hence, the petition is not entertained.
51	LPA 782/2010 HIGH COURT OF DELHI (215.38 KB)	06 Jan, 2011	CENTRAL INFORMATIION COMMISSION Vs. DEPARTMENT OF POSTS & ORS The present appeal is against the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.(C) No.11576/2009 whereby the learned single Judge has modified the order passed by the Central Information Commission wherein a penalty of Rs.25,000/- was levied on the Central Public Information Officer(CPIO) and reduced the same to Rs.5,000/. On a perusal of the information sought and the time consumed, the Court find that reasonable period has been spent and hence, that would tantamount to an explanation for delay caused by the officer concerned. In view of the aforesaid, the reduction of the penalty by the learned single Judge is justified. Appeal disposed off.
52	SPL CIVIL APPLN No. 15887 of 2010 HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT, AHMEDABAD (124.50 KB)	20 Dec, 2010	VISHNUBHAI N PAREKH VS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNER It can be seen that all acts or omissions connected with information which is mala fide withheld or information supplied is incorrect or incomplete or misleading, are dealt with under Section 20 by making such action penal. In this context, if one peruses Section 18, it clearly emerges that Information Commission is entrusted with the powers of Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for specified purposes such as summoning and enforcing attendance of persons and to compel them to give evidence, requiring the discovery and inspection of documents, receiving evidence on affidavit, requisitioning any public record or copies for issuing summons for examination of witnesses or documents. Such powers cannot be construed as converting the said authority into a Court for all purposes much less for the purpose of Contempt of Courts Act. Therefore, no question of respondent committing contempt of his own Court. Even otherwise, by refusing to initiate Contempt of Court and referring the same to the High Court, he could not be said to have committed any contempt. The application of the petitioner under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, therefore, was without any substance and was rightly dismissed by His Excellency the Governor. The reasons or non-reasons for rejecting the review, therefore, are not relevant for the present petition. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.
53	CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 3671 of 2010 HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD, U.P. (111.65 KB)	12 Nov, 2010	Ram Sakha Singh Vs. Sunil Kumar Chaudhary, State Chief Information Commissioner. The applicant, who is a retired village Panchayat Officer, made a request for obtaining information regarding disbursement of fund under several Schemes, job cords, meeting of several committees , constructions etc. under Section 6 of Right to Information Act, 2005. High court passed Orders for providing information on two occasions. Applicant submitted that neither a copy of the aforementioned order dated 18.1.2010 was served upon the applicant nor the same was passed in his presence, as such the applicant was not aware of the aforementioned orders dated 4.1.2010 and 18.1.2010. He further submits that had he been aware about the said orders, he would have definitely not filed the contempt applications. High Court directed the public authority to make Rs.50,000/- as penalty.
54	WRIT - C No. - 59636 of 2010 HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD (31.61 KB)	04 Oct, 2010	Bans Raj Singh Vs. U.P. State Information Commission Petitioner's contention is that he wanted certain information from the respondent no. 2 Director, Social Welfare Department, U.P. Lucknow under the Right to Information Act, 2005 but the same has not been given by such authority. The High Court dispose of the writ petition by giving an opportunity to the authority to present before the appellate authority, who has passed such order and explain the position within a week positively and in spite of the same if such authority shows any rigidity then cost as proposed to be imposed upon such person holding the position from his personal account.
55	W.P.(C) 120/2010 and CM APPL 233/2010 HIGH COURT OF DELHI (88.26 KB)	29 Sep, 2010	UNION OF INDIA Vs BALENDRA KUMAR The mere expression of an apprehension of possible misuse of information cannot justify non‐disclosure of information.
56	WRIT - C No. - 15421 of 2008 HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD, U.P. (28.33 KB)	07 Sep, 2010	M.J.P. Rohilkhand University Vs. State Information Commission The facts of the present case are that complainant, submitted applications under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 obtaining certain information before the Registrar of the University, but due to un-avoidable circumstances the same could not be provided within time. Aggrieved thereby, the complainant preferred an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act before the Vice Chancellor of the University and the information has been provided to the complainant. Thereafter complainant being un-satisfied filed another appeal before the State Information Commission under Section 19(3) of the Act. Since all the information have been provided to the complainant as was required and this fact has been brought to the notice of the Commission, inspite of that, the Commission has passed the impugned orders. High Court dismissed the Order of the Commission imposing penalty on CPIO.
57	SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7617 of 2010 HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT (176.21 KB)	03 Sep, 2010	CHIEF OFFICER Vs CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER The petitioner being a Chief Officer of Talaja Municipality has challenged order of penalty passed by respondent - Chief Information Commissioner, in Appeal under Section 19 of Right to Information Act, 2005. The order passed by the Commissioner is required to be quashed and set aside with a direction to respondent - Commissioner to decide while remanding back matter afresh after considering reasonable explanation/defence of petitioner and then to pass appropriate reasoned order after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to both parties which according to my opinion, will meet end of justice between parties.
58	W.P. (C) 2234/2010 HIGH COURT OF DELHI (66.62 KB)	07 Apr, 2010	MANISH KUMAR Vs PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER AND ANR. The Petitioner is aggrieved sought information relating to tax evasion case of one Mr. Pawan Kumar. The Income Tax Department commenced investigations. CIC held that the details of the return of income/wealth filed by Pawan Kumar were in the nature of personal information of the concerned tax payer and confidential under Section 138 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Further, the information was held by the tax authority as personal information and, therefore, could not be disclosed under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. It was also pointed out that the Petitioner had matrimonial disputes with his wife and the said Pawan Kumar was his father‐in‐law. The information was being sought by him in order to strengthen his position in the matrimonial dispute and, therefore, the disclosure would not be in public interest but was really concerning the private interest of the Petitioner. The High Court upheld the decision of CIC. The Petition dismissed.
59	SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 465 of 2010 HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD (3.94 KB)	02 Apr, 2010	Brahm Singh Vs. State Information Commissioner In this special appeal, order of the learned Single Judge dated 22.03.2010 is challenged. The learned Single Judge has held that under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which is self-contained Act, which provides the power to impose penalties in an appropriate case for non-furnishing of the information. Thereby, the learned Single Judge has held since once the Act in question is self-contained Act, and penal clause is there with further authority to undertake disciplinary action and punish such an incumbent, then there is no occasion to issue any direction vis-a-vis under the Right to Information Act, 2005. HC dismissed the appeal.
60	WRIT - C No. - 14198 of 2010 HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD (5.01 KB)	22 Mar, 2010	Brahm Sing Vs. State Information Commissioner Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the State Information Commission, Lucknow to pass an appropriate order on the appeal in order to make available the information. The Act in question (RTI Act) is self contained Act, and penal clause is there with further authority to undertake disciplinary action and punish such an incumbent, then there is no occasion for this Court to proceed to issue any direction visa-vis under the Right to Information Act. Consequently, writ petition is dismissed.

46

C.W.P. No. 18694 of 2011. [O&M] HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
(176.44 KB) pdf icon

01 Dec, 2011

Dalbir Singh Versus Chief Information Commissioner, Haryana & Ors.

The information regarding the marks obtained by the selected candidates in their academic qualifications and interview has been denied to the petitioner only on the ground that the information sought is quite bulky. The High Court Ordered that, The respondent – Commission should supply the information to the petitioner at his expenses.

47

CWP No. 5456 of 2011 HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
(62.84 KB) pdf icon

08 Nov, 2011

Karamjit Singh and others Versus State Information Commission, Punjab and another

The petitioners filed this petition seeking quashing of the order of SIC whereby respondent while dismissing the complaint filed by petitioner No.1 seeking information under the RTI Act, has directed the Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab to take action against the petitioners. The High Court set aside the Order of SIC.

48

Civil Writ Petition No.16419 of 2011 HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
(119.01 KB) pdf icon

05 Sep, 2011

Randhir Singh Saroha Versus State Information Commissioner, Haryana and others

The petitioner is aggrieved by an order passed by the Chief Information Commissioner, Haryana, failing to impose fine upon respondents for furnishing incomplete information. The petitioner is advised to approach the State Information Commissioner, Haryana, by way of an appropriate application, with respect to the compliance report.

49

L.P.A. No. 543 of 2009 HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
(82.84 KB) pdf icon

11 Jul, 2011

The Commissioner (Appeal) of Central Excise and Service Tax, Ranchi Vs. Information Commissioner,.

The grievance of the appellant is that in a proceeding under the Right To Information Act, the authorities could not have directed for re-constitution of the records and then give the information to the applicant.The High Court held that, the direction to reconstitute the record is only a one step in furtherance of providing the information to the applicant under the Right To Information Act and there is no illegality in that direction. The Petition dismissed by the Court.

50

S.C.A. No. 4430 of 2011 HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT, AHMEDABAD
(236.60 KB) pdf icon

19 Apr, 2011

NAFIS AHMED M ISHFAQUE CHHIPA THE AHMEDABAD GUJRI ASSOCIATION Versus COMMISSIONER - STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION

The High Court held that ,for the purpose of implementation and execution of the order, the petitioner may take appropriate steps and action as may be available under law including Section 20 of the Act. The prerogative writ and powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be permitted to be invoked for implementing the order passed by the authority under the Act. Hence, the petition is not entertained.

51

LPA 782/2010 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
(215.38 KB) pdf icon

06 Jan, 2011

CENTRAL INFORMATIION COMMISSION Vs. DEPARTMENT OF POSTS & ORS

The present appeal is against the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.(C) No.11576/2009 whereby the learned single Judge has modified the order passed by the Central Information Commission wherein a penalty of Rs.25,000/- was levied on the Central Public Information Officer(CPIO) and reduced the same to Rs.5,000/. On a perusal of the information sought and the time consumed, the Court find that reasonable period has been spent and hence, that would tantamount to an explanation for delay caused by the officer concerned. In view of the aforesaid, the reduction of the penalty by the learned single Judge is justified. Appeal disposed off.

52

SPL CIVIL APPLN No. 15887 of 2010 HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT, AHMEDABAD
(124.50 KB) pdf icon

20 Dec, 2010

VISHNUBHAI N PAREKH VS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNER

It can be seen that all acts or omissions connected with information which is mala fide withheld or information supplied is incorrect or incomplete or misleading, are dealt with under Section 20 by making such action penal. In this context, if one peruses Section 18, it clearly emerges that Information Commission is entrusted with the powers of Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for specified purposes such as summoning and enforcing attendance of persons and to compel them to give evidence, requiring the discovery and inspection of documents, receiving evidence on affidavit, requisitioning any public record or copies for issuing summons for examination of witnesses or documents. Such powers cannot be construed as converting the said authority into a Court for all purposes much less for the purpose of Contempt of Courts Act. Therefore, no question of respondent committing contempt of his own Court. Even otherwise, by refusing to initiate Contempt of Court and referring the same to the High Court, he could not be said to have committed any contempt. The application of the petitioner under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, therefore, was without any substance and was rightly dismissed by His Excellency the Governor. The reasons or non-reasons for rejecting the review, therefore, are not relevant for the present petition. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.

53

CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 3671 of 2010 HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD, U.P.
(111.65 KB) pdf icon

12 Nov, 2010

Ram Sakha Singh Vs. Sunil Kumar Chaudhary, State Chief Information Commissioner.

The applicant, who is a retired village Panchayat Officer, made a request for obtaining information regarding disbursement of fund under several Schemes, job cords, meeting of several committees , constructions etc. under Section 6 of Right to Information Act, 2005. High court passed Orders for providing information on two occasions. Applicant submitted that neither a copy of the aforementioned order dated 18.1.2010 was served upon the applicant nor the same was passed in his presence, as such the applicant was not aware of the aforementioned orders dated 4.1.2010 and 18.1.2010. He further submits that had he been aware about the said orders, he would have definitely not filed the contempt applications. High Court directed the public authority to make Rs.50,000/- as penalty.

54

WRIT - C No. - 59636 of 2010 HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
(31.61 KB) pdf icon

04 Oct, 2010

Bans Raj Singh Vs. U.P. State Information Commission

Petitioner's contention is that he wanted certain information from the respondent no. 2 Director, Social Welfare Department, U.P. Lucknow under the Right to Information Act, 2005 but the same has not been given by such authority. The High Court dispose of the writ petition by giving an opportunity to the authority to present before the appellate authority, who has passed such order and explain the position within a week positively and in spite of the same if such authority shows any rigidity then cost as proposed to be imposed upon such person holding the position from his personal account.

55

W.P.(C) 120/2010 and CM APPL 233/2010 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
(88.26 KB) pdf icon

29 Sep, 2010

UNION OF INDIA Vs BALENDRA KUMAR

The mere expression of an apprehension of possible misuse of information cannot justify non‐disclosure of information.

56

WRIT - C No. - 15421 of 2008 HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD, U.P.
(28.33 KB) pdf icon

07 Sep, 2010

M.J.P. Rohilkhand University Vs. State Information Commission

The facts of the present case are that complainant, submitted applications under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 obtaining certain information before the Registrar of the University, but due to un-avoidable circumstances the same could not be provided within time. Aggrieved thereby, the complainant preferred an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act before the Vice Chancellor of the University and the information has been provided to the complainant. Thereafter complainant being un-satisfied filed another appeal before the State Information Commission under Section 19(3) of the Act. Since all the information have been provided to the complainant as was required and this fact has been brought to the notice of the Commission, inspite of that, the Commission has passed the impugned orders. High Court dismissed the Order of the Commission imposing penalty on CPIO.

57

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7617 of 2010 HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
(176.21 KB) pdf icon

03 Sep, 2010

CHIEF OFFICER Vs CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

The petitioner being a Chief Officer of Talaja Municipality has challenged order of penalty passed by respondent - Chief Information Commissioner, in Appeal under Section 19 of Right to Information Act, 2005. The order passed by the Commissioner is required to be quashed and set aside with a direction to respondent - Commissioner to decide while remanding back matter afresh after considering reasonable explanation/defence of petitioner and then to pass appropriate reasoned order after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to both parties which according to my opinion, will meet end of justice between parties.

58

W.P. (C) 2234/2010 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
(66.62 KB) pdf icon

07 Apr, 2010

MANISH KUMAR Vs PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER AND ANR.

The Petitioner is aggrieved sought information relating to tax evasion case of one Mr. Pawan Kumar. The Income Tax Department commenced investigations. CIC held that the details of the return of income/wealth filed by Pawan Kumar were in the nature of personal information of the concerned tax payer and confidential under Section 138 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Further, the information was held by the tax authority as personal information and, therefore, could not be disclosed under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. It was also pointed out that the Petitioner had matrimonial disputes with his wife and the said Pawan Kumar was his father‐in‐law. The information was being sought by him in order to strengthen his position in the matrimonial dispute and, therefore, the disclosure would not be in public interest but was really concerning the private interest of the Petitioner. The High Court upheld the decision of CIC. The Petition dismissed.

59

SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 465 of 2010 HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
(3.94 KB) pdf icon

02 Apr, 2010

Brahm Singh Vs. State Information Commissioner

In this special appeal, order of the learned Single Judge dated 22.03.2010 is challenged. The learned Single Judge has held that under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which is self-contained Act, which provides the power to impose penalties in an appropriate case for non-furnishing of the information. Thereby, the learned Single Judge has held since once the Act in question is self-contained Act, and penal clause is there with further authority to undertake disciplinary action and punish such an incumbent, then there is no occasion to issue any direction vis-a-vis under the Right to Information Act, 2005. HC dismissed the appeal.

60

WRIT - C No. - 14198 of 2010 HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
(5.01 KB) pdf icon

22 Mar, 2010

Brahm Sing Vs. State Information Commissioner

Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the State Information Commission, Lucknow to pass an appropriate order on the appeal in order to make available the information. The Act in question (RTI Act) is self contained Act, and penal clause is there with further authority to undertake disciplinary action and punish such an incumbent, then there is no occasion for this Court to proceed to issue any direction visa-vis under the Right to Information Act. Consequently, writ petition is dismissed.