Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.23 seconds)Section 6 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Union Of India vs Namit Sharma on 3 September, 2013
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Union of India v. Namit Sharma in
REVIEW PETITION [C] No.2309 OF 2012 IN Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 with State of
Rajasthan and Anr. vs. Namit Sharma Review Petition [C] No.2675 OF 2012 In Writ Petition [C]
No.210 OF 2012 had held as under:
Hansi Rawat & Anr. vs Punjab National Bank & Ors. on 11 January, 2013
Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. vs. Punjab National
Bank and Ors. LPA No.785/2012 dated 11.01.2013 held as under:
Shobha Vijender vs Chief Information Commissioner & Ors on 29 November, 2017
A similar view delineating the scope of the Commission's jurisdiction was also taken by the
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sher Singh Rawat vs. Chief Information Commissioner and Ors.,
W.P. (C) 5220/2017 and CM No. 22184/2017 dated 29.08.2017 and in the matter of Shobha
Page 4 of 6
Vijender vs. Chief Information Commissioner W.P. (C) No. 8289/2016 and CM 34297/2016
dated 29.11.2016.
Dev Dutt vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 May, 2008
As regards the disclosure of his own ACR to the Appellant, the Commission referred to the
judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the decision of Dev Dutt vs Union Of India
& Ors on 12 May, 2008, Civil Appeal No. 7631 OF 2002, had held as under
Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India on 25 January, 1978
"19. In our opinion, every entry in the A.C.R. of a public servant must be communicated
to him within a reasonable period, whether it is a poor, fair, average, good or very good
entry. This is because non-communication of such an entry may adversely affect the
employee in two ways : (1) Had the entry been communicated to him he would know
about the assessment of his work and conduct by his superiors, which would enable him
to improve his work in future (2) He would have an opportunity of making a
representation against the entry if he feels it is unjustified, and pray for its upgradation.
Hence non-communication of an entry is arbitrary, and it has been held by the
Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (supra)
that arbitrariness violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
Centrlal Board Of Sec.Education & Anr vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors on 9 August, 2011
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC
497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), wherein it was held as under:
Thdc India Limited vs Smt. T. Chandra Biswas on 8 March, 2013
In fact, another coordinate Bench of this Court in THDC India Ltd. v. T.
Chandra Biswas 199 (2013) DLT 284 has held as under:-