Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.30 seconds)The Right to Information Act, 2005
P.S. Sadasivaswamy vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 7 October, 1974
(xv) In State of Uttaranchal v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari reported in
(2013) 12 SCC 179, following the judgment in P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State
of Tamil Nadu, [(1975) 1 SCC 152], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in
case a junior is promoted over his head, the senior must challenge it, at least
within six months or at the most a year of such seniority and that anyone
who sleeps over his right is bound to suffer. At Paragraph 24, it is held as
under:
New Delhi Municipal Council vs Pan Singh & Ors on 8 March, 2007
(xii) In S.S.Balu v. State of Kerala reported in (2009) 2 SCC 479, following
the judgment in NDMC v. Pan Singh (AIR 2007 SC 1365), at paragraph 17,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
The Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003
Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd ... vs K. Thangappan & Anr on 4 April, 2006
After
such a long time, therefore, the writ petitions could
not have been entertained even if they are similarly
situated. It is trite that the discretionary jurisdiction
may not be exercised in favour of those who approach
the court after a long time. Delay and laches are
relevant factors for exercise of equitable jurisdiction.
(See Govt. of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy [(2004) 1 SCC 347],
U.P. Jal Nigam v. Jaswant Singh [(2006) 11 SCC 464]
and Karnataka Power Corpn. Ltd., v. K.Thangappan
[(2006) 4 SCC 332])
Chairman, U.P.Jal Nigam & Anr vs Jaswant Singh & Anr on 10 November, 2006
After
such a long time, therefore, the writ petitions could
not have been entertained even if they are similarly
situated. It is trite that the discretionary jurisdiction
may not be exercised in favour of those who approach
the court after a long time. Delay and laches are
relevant factors for exercise of equitable jurisdiction.
(See Govt. of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy [(2004) 1 SCC 347],
U.P. Jal Nigam v. Jaswant Singh [(2006) 11 SCC 464]
and Karnataka Power Corpn. Ltd., v. K.Thangappan
[(2006) 4 SCC 332])
Virender Chaudhary vs Bharat Petroleum Corp. & Ors on 7 November, 2008
Some of the decisions considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in Virender Chaudhary's case (cited supra), are reiterated as
follows:
Shri K.L. Bablani vs Directorate General Of Vigilance, ... on 16 September, 2009
Further, the information regarding decision of the CVC
and the ground on which CVC has taken the decision to close
the matter i.e file noting in which the matter was examined,
is exempted from disclosure as per Section 11(1) r/w section
2(n) of the RTI Act as upheld by the CIC in case no.
CIC/AT/A/2009/0617 dated 16/09/2009 in case of K.L.Bablani
Vs DG Vigilance, Customs & Central Excise in which CIC held
that file-notings in vigilance files cannot authorized to be
disclosed as these amount to information confidentially held
by the public authority and thereby came within the scope of
Section 11(1) read with section 2(n) of the RIT Act. The CIC
order had also been relied upon by the CIC while delivering
decision in Case No.CIC/AT/A/2010/000757 dated 12/11/2010
and in Case No.CIC/SB/A/2015/000649 dated 08/02/2017.
The decisions in above cases essential proves that the file
noting in vigilance files cannot be authorized to be disclosed
W.P(C)24346/2022
12
as these amounts to information confidentially held by the
public authority and thereby come within the scope of
Section 11(1) r/w section 2(n) of RTI Act, 2005.
Government Of West Bengal vs Tarun K. Roy And Ors on 18 November, 2003
After
such a long time, therefore, the writ petitions could
not have been entertained even if they are similarly
situated. It is trite that the discretionary jurisdiction
may not be exercised in favour of those who approach
the court after a long time. Delay and laches are
relevant factors for exercise of equitable jurisdiction.
(See Govt. of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy [(2004) 1 SCC 347],
U.P. Jal Nigam v. Jaswant Singh [(2006) 11 SCC 464]
and Karnataka Power Corpn. Ltd., v. K.Thangappan
[(2006) 4 SCC 332])