Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.55 seconds)Section 20 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Anand Bhushan vs R.A. Haritash on 29 March, 2012
"5. The question whether the CIC had the discretion to restrict the penalty or whether
penalty as provided under Section 20 of the Act is mandatory, is no longer res integra.
The said question was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Anand Bhushan v.
R.A. Haritash: ILR (2012) 4 Delhi 657 and the relevant extract of the said decision is set
out below....
General Manager Finance Air India Ltd & ... vs Virender Singh on 16 July, 2012
Furthermore, High Court of Delhi in the decision of General Manager Finance Air India Ltd &
Anr v. Virender Singh, LPA No. 205/2012, Decided On: 16.07.2012 had held as under:
Milan Singh Bhagat vs State Of Chhattisgarh 39 Wps/4590/2019 ... on 26 June, 2019
Similarly, the following observation of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Bhagat Singh v. CIC &
Ors. WP(C) 3114/2007 are pertinent in this matter:
Rajesh Tiwari vs State Of Chhattisgarh 13 Wps/6051/2017 ... on 23 March, 2018
Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the decision of Col. Rajendra Singh v. Central
Information Commission and Anr. WP (C) 5469 of 2008 dated 20.03.2009 had held as under:
Mujibur Rehman vs Central Information Commission on 28 April, 2009
In this
context, the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Mujibur
Rehman vs Central Information Commission (W.P. (C) 3845/2007)(Dated 28 April, 2009)
wherein it had been held as under:
Shri R. K. Agarwal vs Central Information Commission (Cic) on 6 April, 2009
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court in the matter of R.K. Jain v. CIC and Anr. in W.P.(C)
4152/2017 dated 10.10.2017 had held as under:
State Of Punjab And Others vs State Information Commissioner on 4 March, 2010
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No.6504 of 2009
Date of decision: 04.03.2010 (State of Punjab and others vs. State Information Commissioner,
Punjab and another); had held as under: