Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.55 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India vs Vimal Bhai . on 24 March, 2014

Prakash Goswami vs Directorate Of Estates on 18 December, 2019

The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. The Respondent present at the hearing stated that a suitable response was sent to the Appellant vide letter dated 19.01.2018 stating that the information was not readily available in a compiled format and that it would unnecessarily divert the resources of the Directorate under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005, which was returned undelivered due to incorrect postal address. On being queried by the Commission whether any Parliament Question regarding the damages charged from unauthorized occupants listed in Government of India, Directorate of Estates (Office Section) in response to the news item referred to in the RTI application, was made by the Respondent Public Authority, the Respondent replied in the negative. On being further questioned by the Commission regarding publication of any report in this regard subsequent to news flashed in TOI on 27.11.2012 upon the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP 12065/2009 in UOI vs. Vimal Bhai & Ors., regarding damages charged from unauthorized occupants, no cogent reply was offered by the Respondent who further submitted that if the Applicant would ask for any specific case, they would be willing to answer accordingly. Moreover, inspection of documents was also offered by the Respondent for any specific case. The Appellant in his 2nd Appeal alleged that the most of the occupants were not charged damages/penal rent for the period of unauthorized occupation because of illegal gratification received from such residents and that the concerned estate officials also indulged in massive corrupt practices and the occupants who refused to bribe them were selectively being targeted. The Appellant in his prayer requested the Commission to direct the Respondent to provide the requisite information as sought in his RTI application dated 28.11.2017. The Commission was however appalled to learn that the damages charged from unauthorized occupants listed in Government of India, Directorate of Estates (Office Section) was not available in the Respondent Public Authority in a compiled format which was a matter of larger public interest.
Central Information Commission Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rakesh Kumar vs Principal Government Inter College, ... on 28 November, 2019

(ii) Necessary action shall be taken by competent authorities in the State of Uttar Pradesh against such Employees/Officers who are unauthorisidely over staying in Government allotted accommodation after their retirement or transfer (as suggested by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.D. Bandi's case and directed to be implemented in Vimal Bhai case).
Allahabad High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 8 - S P Kesarwani - Full Document

Mp High Court Adv. Bar Assocn. vs Union Of India Ministry Of Environment ... on 18 May, 2022

5.2 Insofar as the creation and setting up of the NGT and the location of their Benches, the learned AG submits that this was done under the active supervision of the Supreme Court and only after the proposed places of sitting recommended by the Central Government received the concurrence of this Court, the concerned Benches and their place of sitting was notified by the Central Government. It is therefore argued that the related notification had the imprimatur of the Supreme Court. The respondents point out that the Supreme Court monitored and oversaw the implementation of the NGT Act and setting up of its Benches in Union of India Vs. Vimal Bhai (SLP(C) No. 12065 of 2009) and the various orders passed on 19.9.2011, 6.12.2012 and 15.3.2013 by this Court would reflect that individual Bench of the NGT was set up to cater to multiple States and the location so Page 8 of 37 chosen for the NGT at Bhopal, also had the approval of the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - H Roy - Full Document

The Managing Director vs A.Anthony Raj Williams

11.Insofar as the creation and setting up of the NGT and the location of their Benches, the learned AG submits that this was done under the active supervision of the Supreme Court and only after the proposed places of sitting recommended by the Central Government received the concurrence of this Court, the concerned Benches and their place of sitting was notified by the Central Government. It is therefore argued that the related notification had the imprimatur of the Supreme Court. The respondents point out that the Supreme Court monitored and oversaw the implementation of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 24/66 W.P.No.22733 of 2022 the NGT Act and setting up of its Benches in Union of India Vs. Vimal Bhai (SLP(C) No. 12065 of 2009) and the various orders passed on 19.9.2011, 6.12.2012 and 15.3.2013 by this Court would reflect that individual Bench of the NGT was set up to cater to multiple States and the location so chosen for the NGT at Bhopal, also had the approval of the Supreme Court.
Madras High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bachche Lal Yadav And 10 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 19 December, 2023

(ii) Necessary action shall be taken by competent authorities in the State of Uttar Pradesh against such Employees/Officers who are unauthorisidely over staying in Government allotted accommodation after their retirement or transfer (as suggested by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.D. Bandi's case and directed to be implemented in Vimal Bhai case).
Allahabad High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - M C Tripathi - Full Document
1   2 Next