Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.23 seconds)The Right to Information Act, 2005
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of U.P vs Raj Narain & Ors on 24 January, 1975
(iii). The State of U.P. v. Raj Narain (1975) 4 SCC 428;
Bhagat Singh vs Chief Information Commissioner And ... on 3 December, 2007
(iv). Bhagat Singh v. Chief Information Commissioner 146(2008)
DLT 385 &
Competition Commission Of India vs Steel Authority Of India & Anr on 9 September, 2010
10. The Supreme Court in Competition Commission of India vs. Steel
Authority of India Ltd. (2010) 10 SCC 744 held that the Competition
Commission constituted under the Competition Act, 2002 discharges
LPA No.777/2010 Page 7 of 10
different functions under different provisions of the Act and the procedure to
be followed in its inquisitorial and regulatory powers/functions is not to be
influenced by the procedure prescribed to be followed in exercise of its
adjudicatory powers. In the context of the RTI Act also, merely because the
CIC, while deciding the complaints/appeals is required to hear the
complainant/information seeker, would not require the CIC to hear them
while punishing the erring Information Officer, in exercise of its supervisory
powers.
Superintendent And Legal Remembrancer ... vs Abani Maity on 6 March, 1979
Similarly in Superintendent and Remembrancer of
Legal Affairs to Government of West Bengal V. Abani Maity (1979) 4 SCC
85, the words „shall be liable for confiscation‟ in section 63 (1) of Bengal
Excise Act, 1909, were held to be not conveying an absolute imperative but
merely a possibility of attracting such penalty inspite of use of the word
„shall‟. It was held that discretion is vested in the court in that case, to
impose or not to impose the penalty.
Ankur Mutreja vs Delhi University on 9 January, 2012
5. We have however recently vide our judgment dated 9 th January, 2012
in LPA 764/2011 titled Ankur Mutreja v. Delhi University held that;