Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.64 seconds)Documents citing
Shri Girish Chandra Mishra & Ors vs Ms Sonia Gandhi Mp, Shri Rahul Gandhi Mp, ... on 10 December, 2009
Unknown vs Smt. Sunita" on 25 April, 2023
9. Consequently, the application of the applicant,
filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
is allowed. The Civil Suit No.110 of 2022, "Girish Chandra
vs. Smt. Sunita", filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955, pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court,
Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar is transferred to the
Family Court, Ramnagar, District Nainital.
Ram Gopal Dixit vs Ministry Of Statistics & Programme ... on 16 September, 2018
44. It is unfortunate that Division Bench of CIC failed to make MPs answerable
under RTI Act. The question whether MP a public authority under RTI Act was
considered by a bench of Ld CIC Wazahat Habibullah and Ld IC Shri
ShaileshGandhi in Girish Chandra Mishra v Smt Sonia Gandhi, on December 10,
2009. It was contended that with the specific authorities conferred by the
Constitution each individual MP should be regarded as public authority under RTI
Act. Shri L Nageshwar Rao, then Senior Advocate in his written argument stated
that MP is an individual and not a 'body' or 'authority', which only could be
considered as 'public authority' as per definition under Section 2(h) of RTI Act.
He wrote to CIC: The term 'body' is defined by Black's Law Dictionary (6th
edition, 6th reprint 1995) as 'Used of a natural body, or of an artificial one
created by law, as a corporation.' The same is defined in P. RamanathaAiyar's
'Advanced Law Lexicon' (3rd edition 2005) as 'a number of individuals spoken of
collectively, usually associated for a common purpose, joined in a certain cause,
or united by some common tie or occupation, as, a legislative body the body of
the clergy a body corporate.' It is, therefore, evident that such elected
CIC/MOSPI/A/2017/195498 Page 38
representatives cannot individually constitute a 'body' for the purposes of section
2 (h) of the RTI Act, though the institutions of which they are members may be
said to constitute such a 'body'. Furthermore, it is self-evident that elected
representatives cannot constitute an 'institution of self-government' within the
meaning of section 2 (h)" of the RTI Act, though in the case of elected
representatives to Panchayats, Municipal Corporations, etc they are members of
such institutions of self government.
Vishnu Dev Bhandari vs Indian Statistical Institute on 16 September, 2018
44. It is unfortunate that Division Bench of CIC failed to make MPs answerable
under RTI Act. The question whether MP a public authority under RTI Act was
considered by a bench of Ld CIC Wazahat Habibullah and Ld IC Shri
CIC/ISTIN/A/2017/184311 Page 38
ShaileshGandhi in Girish Chandra Mishra v Smt Sonia Gandhi, on December 10,
2009. It was contended that with the specific authorities conferred by the
Constitution each individual MP should be regarded as public authority under RTI
Act. Shri L Nageshwar Rao, then Senior Advocate in his written argument stated
that MP is an individual and not a 'body' or 'authority', which only could be
considered as 'public authority' as per definition under Section 2(h) of RTI Act.
He wrote to CIC: The term 'body' is defined by Black's Law Dictionary (6th
edition, 6th reprint 1995) as 'Used of a natural body, or of an artificial one
created by law, as a corporation.' The same is defined in P. RamanathaAiyar's
'Advanced Law Lexicon' (3rd edition 2005) as 'a number of individuals spoken of
collectively, usually associated for a common purpose, joined in a certain cause,
or united by some common tie or occupation, as, a legislative body the body of
the clergy a body corporate.' It is, therefore, evident that such elected
representatives cannot individually constitute a 'body' for the purposes of section
2 (h) of the RTI Act, though the institutions of which they are members may be
said to constitute such a 'body'. Furthermore, it is self-evident that elected
representatives cannot constitute an 'institution of self-government' within the
meaning of section 2 (h)" of the RTI Act, though in the case of elected
representatives to Panchayats, Municipal Corporations, etc they are members of
such institutions of self government.
Ram Gopal Dixit vs Ministry Of Statistics & Programme ... on 17 October, 2018
44. It is unfortunate that Division Bench of CIC failed to make MPs answerable
under RTI Act. The question whether MP a public authority under RTI Act was
considered by a bench of Ld CIC Wazahat Habibullah and Ld IC Shri ShaileshGandhi
in Girish Chandra Mishra v Smt Sonia Gandhi, on December 10, 2009. It was
contended that with the specific authorities conferred by the Constitution each
individual MP should be regarded as public authority under RTI Act. Shri L
Nageshwar Rao, then Senior Advocate in his written argument stated that MP is an
individual and not a 'body' or 'authority', which only could be considered as 'public
authority' as per definition under Section 2(h) of RTI Act. He wrote to CIC: The
term 'body' is defined by Black's Law Dictionary (6th edition, 6th reprint 1995) as
'Used of a natural body, or of an artificial one created by law, as a corporation.' The
same is defined in P. RamanathaAiyar's 'Advanced Law Lexicon' (3rd edition 2005)
as 'a number of individuals spoken of collectively, usually associated for a common
purpose, joined in a certain cause, or united by some common tie or occupation,
as, a legislative body the body of the clergy a body corporate.' It is, therefore,
evident that such elected representatives cannot individually constitute a 'body' for
the purposes of section 2 (h) of the RTI Act, though the institutions of which they
are members may be said to constitute such a 'body'. Furthermore, it is self-evident
that elected representatives cannot constitute an 'institution of self-government'
within the meaning of section 2 (h)" of the RTI Act, though in the case of elected
representatives to Panchayats, Municipal Corporations, etc they are members of
CIC/MOSPI/A/2017/195498 Page 40
such institutions of self government.
1