Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.30 seconds)The Right to Information Act, 2005
Ishwarlal Mohanlal Thakkar vs Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd.& Anr on 16 April, 2014
In Iswarlal Mohanlal Thakkar Vs. Paschim Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd., the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 4558 of 2014 (2014) 6 SCC 434
vide para 19 has held as follows:
S.S. Rathore vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 September, 1989
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for
the applicant while highlighting the submission made in the OA, submitted
that the applicant had submitted his original representation for altering the
date of birth well within 5 years. The rejection was made at that time by
Respondent No. 3 who is not competent as the final order was to be
passed by the 1st Respondent. The 1st respondent only issued the final
10
OA No.
170/00269/2017/CAT/BANGALORE
order only on 03.03.2017 and hence the actual cause of action arises on
03.03.2017. He refers to a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in S S Rathore
Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh saying that the Hon'ble Apex Court held that
the actual cause of action shall be taken to arise not from the date of the
original order but from the date when the order of the higher authority
where a statutory remedy is provided by entertaining the appeal or
representation made. He further mentioned that the Respondent No. 1 has
not rejected his appeal on the ground of any delay but the fact that he
could not establish that genuine mistake has occurred. Hence there is no
issue of delay involved as has been highlighted by the respondents in their
reply statement. He further submitted that the date of birth certificate issued
by the Chief Registrar of Birth and Death (Commissioner Corporation of
Bangalore) is a valid document and shall have to be taken as authentic.
The 1st standard Admission Register of the Government Primary School,
Nagamangala also indicates the same date of 08.05.1959. There was a
mistake when recording date of birth by the Government Primary Boys
School, K.R. Pet which he joined on transfer and this was carried on to the
SSLC certificate. The applicant came to know during September, 2012
about the mistake in the ground taken by the 3 rd respondent while rejecting
his prayer when on obtaining information under RTI Act regarding
conditions of age for appearing in SSLC Examination through Karnataka
Secondary Education Board it was informed that as per Rule 37 there is no
minimum age to appear for SSLC Examination in 1974. The minimum age
was fixed only from January, 2013. Hence the rejection by the 3 rd
Respondent earlier on the ground that Note 6(c) regarding condition for
age for appearing in SSLC Examination has not been satisfied was
11
OA No.
170/00269/2017/CAT/BANGALORE
incorrect and hence he started making representations to the respondents
who is the competent authority. Respondent No. 1 sought various details
and passed an order on 03.03.2017 based on the recommendation by the
3rd Respondent saying that since the Transfer Certificate and Parturition
Register in the hospital are not available the reason for mistake in
recording date of birth could not be justified this view without taking into
account the fact that the Birth Certificate and the Admission Register of the
school where the first admission took place are available is grossly
incorrect. Moreover the order passed by the 1 st Respondent is not a
speaking order. Hence he submitted that the applicant is entitled to his
prayer for change in the date of birth based on his actual date of birth as
per the Birth Certificate issued by the competent authority. The applicant
has also submitted a written argument highlighting the above aspects.