Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.60 seconds)Section 20 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Section 18 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Union Public Service Commission vs Shiv Shambhu on 3 September, 2008
"2. At the outset this Court directs the deletion of the CIC which has been
arrayed as Respondent No. 1 to this appeal, consequent upon it being
arrayed as such in the writ petition. This Court has repeatedly issued
practice directions stressing that a judicial or quasi-judicial body or
Tribunal whose order is challenged in a writ petition (and thereafter
possibly in appeal) ought not to itself be impleaded as a party respondent.
The only exception would be if malafides are alleged against any
individual member of such authority or Tribunal in which case again it
would be such member, and not the authority/Tribunal, who may be
impleaded as a respondent. Accordingly the cause title of the present
appeal will read as Union Public Service Commission v. Shiv Shambhu &
Ors."
Section 19 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Section 7 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Bar Council Of Delhi vs Central Information Commission And Anr on 14 February, 2017
28. Another coordinate Bench, in Bar Council of Delhi v. Central
Information Commission11, set aside a show cause notice with regard to
penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act, noting that the public authority
had indicated that all available information had already been provided.
Registrar Of Companies & Ors vs Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr on 1 June, 2012
24. The judgment was followed by the learned Single Judge in State
Bank of India vs. Mohd. Shahjahan7 and Registrar of Companies & Ors.
vs. Dhamendra Kr. Garg & Anr.8.
M/S. Siemens Ltd. ... Appellant vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors. ... ... on 1 December, 2006
Examples of cases in which the Supreme Court held that intervention at the show cause notice stage
was justified are found inter alia in Siemens Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [(2006) 12 SCC 33]
(paragraph 9), and Union of India v. VICCO Laboratories [(2007) 13 SCC 270] (paragraph 31).
Coordinate benches of this Court have also considered it appropriate to entertain writ petitions against
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHUPENDER
Signing Date:01.07.2025 W.P.(C) 13654/2023 Page 11 of 20
16:31:32
of the case is required, the Court would generally exercise a self-imposed
restriction against entertaining a writ petition. In the present case, the
dispute concerns the jurisdiction of CIC under Sections 18 and 20 of the
RTI Act. HPCL has taken a clear position that the information sought by
the respondent is not maintained by it at all. There is no controversy on
merits or on facts, which would require determination at this stage.
Keeping in mind the nature of Mr. Venugopal's submissions, I am
therefore of the view that the present case does not deserve to be rejected
on this preliminary ground.