Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1707 (2.68 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India vs Namit Sharma on 3 September, 2013

Jagte Raho vs The Chief Minister Of Gujarat & ... on 12 February, 2015

12. The aforesaid consideration by the Committee, in our view, is no compliance to the direction of the Apex Court at para 39.5 for the simple reason that there is no formulation of opinion about any of the candidates for his eminence in public life or for his knowledge and experience in a particular field. Had it been a case where the Committee had mentioned the aforesaid aspects of formulation of opinion against the respective candidate whose bio-data were placed before the Committee, it may stand on different footing and different consideration, but nothing is mentioned for such purpose. Under these circumstances, we find that the mandatory procedure of the above referred directions issued by the Apex Court in case of Union of India Vs. Namit Sharma Page 13 of 18 C/WPPIL/143/2014 JUDGMENT (supra) while upholding the constitutional validity of Sections 12(5) and 15(5), which, as referred to herein above was mandatory, has not been followed. Once, as observed earlier, a mandatory procedure read down by the Apex Court by way of an inbuilt mechanism in exercise of the power under Sections 12(3) and 15(3) read with the provisions of Sections 12(5) and 15(5) of the Act has not been followed, it can be said that the decision is vitiated of the Committee for appointment of the persons concerned as the Information Commissioners.
Gujarat High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - J Patel - Full Document

Smt. Rupali Dubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 October, 2021

In this behalf, the respondents shall also take into consideration and follow the below directions given by this Court in Union of India vs. Namit Sharma (supra). "39. .....We direct that only persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience in the fields mentioned in Sections 12(5) and 15(5) of the Act be considered for appointment as Information Commissioner and Chief Information Commissioner.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 1 - S Dwivedi - Full Document

Sri. A. Ramachandra Rao vs The Secretary To Government on 3 September, 2019

Learned Senior counsel in support of his submissions has referred to the decisions of Supreme Court in 'DALPAT ABASAHEB SOLUNKE AND OTHERS Vs. DR.B.S.MAHAJAN AND OTHERS' (1990) 1 SCC 305, 'MUNICIPAL BOARD, BAREILLY Vs. BHARAT OIL 11 COMPANY AND OTHERS' (1990) 1 SCC 311, 'UNION OF INDIA Vs. NAMIT SHARMA' (2013) 10 SCC 359, UNION OF INDIA Vs. NAMIT SHARMA' (2013) 10 SCC 389 as well as decision of Supreme Court in the case of ANJALI BHARDWAJ, supra referred in W.P.Civil No.436/2018 dated 15.02.2019.
Karnataka High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - A Aradhe - Full Document

The Principal vs State Information Commission on 9 February, 2026

14. But in my opinion, the reliance placed on the afore judgment would not save the situation since admittedly the afore judgment has been reviewed by the Apex Court in Union of India v. Namit Sharma (supra), having found that the directions issued earlier require to be recalled. Therefore, the Apex Court, after recalling the directions issued earlier, issued fresh directions under paragraph 39 of the judgment, of which paragraph 39.6 is also relied on by Sri. Ajay, which reads as under:-
Kerala High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Chetan Prakash vs Reserve Bank Of India on 30 June, 2022

11. As far as the judgment relied on by the original applicant Mr. Girish Mittal in his submissions in the case of Union of India vs. Namit Sharma bearing Review Petition (C) No. 2309/2012 in W. P (C) No. 210/2012 is concerned, the Commission has gone through the contents of the said case carefully and observed that the said case has no relevance in these matters as Central Information Commission is primarily an Appellate Quasi-Judicial Court and not the original authority to decide the RTI Application. The Commission only adjudicates the matter on the decision of the CPIO and FAA, only on the issue as to whether the information as sought should be disclosed to the applicant or not in view of the provisions of RTI Act and guidance from the orders of higher judicial courts on such issues.
Central Information Commission Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - N K Gupta - Full Document

R. Muthukumaraswamy vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 7 February, 2014

From the perusal of the functions assigned to the State Electricity Regulatory Commission, we are of the view that the adjudicatory power is very minimal to the State Commission when compared to National Company Law Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal. As stated supra, the orders of the State Commission are appealable before the Appellate Tribunal, which is to be headed by a Judge of the Supreme Court or Chief Justice of the High Court, serving or retired. The said judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2010) 11 SCC 1 (Union of India v. Madras Bar Association) is referred in the decision reported in (2013) 10 SCC 359 (Union of India v. Namit Sharma) and distinguished the same and upheld the power of the Government in appointing persons other than sitting or retired Judges as Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) and Information Commissioners (ICs).
Madras High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - N N Vasanthakumar - Full Document

Chalisgaon Education Society And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 26 November, 2014

" Whether the review judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Namit Sharma [(2013) 10 SCC 359] would render the conclusions drawn by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Goa Cricket Association Vs. State of Goa and others [2013 (4) Mah.L.J. 453], inapplicable, in relation to formation of Benches of State Information Commission comprising of two Members? "
Bombay High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 3 - R V Ghuge - Full Document

State Of Gujarat vs Utility Users Welfare Association ... on 12 April, 2018

60. We are dealing with the rejoinders of the counsel only to the extent that they seek to add something arising from the submissions of the counsel propagating that a Judge should be the Chairman of the Commission. Learned Attorney General referred to the judgment in Union of India v. Namit Sharma 28 but then we may note that the principle advanced is based on a non-adjudicatory function. Learned AG also referred to Part XI dealing with the Appellate Tribunal where 28 supra Page 48 of 84 under Section 111(6), the Appellate tribunal can call for records of proceedings and make orders and can act even on its own motion. The provision reads as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 100 - Cited by 222 - S K Kaul - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next