Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.40 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Cpio, Supreme Court Of India, Tilak ... vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal & Anr. on 2 September, 2009
"That on a holistic reading of the said judgment, it appears to us
that the Court was mainly dealing with the question as to whether any
immunity could be claimed from production of the records in respect of
the correspondence between the Law Minister and the Chief Justice of
India and the relevant notings made by them in regard to the transfer of a
High Court Judge including the Chief Justices of the High Court which
were extremely material for deciding whether there was full and effective
consultation? It is observed at more than one place that the non-disclosure
of the said documents would seriously handicap the petitioner therein in
showing that there was no full and effective consultation with the Chief
Justice of India or that the transfer was by way of punishment and not in
public interest. It is observed:
Kunhayammed & Ors vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 19 July, 2000
17. Mr.Nedumpara has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Kunhayammed & ors vs State of
Kerala reported in (2000) 6 Supreme Court Cases 359. He submits that
this Judgment reiterates the principle that mere refusal of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court to entertain a Special Leave Petition or dismissal thereof
does not attract the principle of res judicata. It does not culminate into
merger of the impugned decision in the order of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court. Even if dismissal of the Special Leave Petition is by speaking or
reasoned order, this Doctrine will have no application. In the circumstances
he would submit that pendency of this matter before the Supreme Court of
::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:59:21 :::
Rng 14
wp1203.13
India should not prevent this Court from dealing with the controversy and
allowing this writ petition by following the Full Bench judgment of the
Delhi High Court.
Article 141 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 19 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd vs Church Or South India Trust Assn. Csi ... on 29 April, 1992
27. We are also not required to go into larger issues and
whether the judgment of the Delhi High Court is stayed or what stayed is
the operational order and directions therein. We are mindful of the test laid
down in the case of SHREE CHAMUNDI MOPEDS LTD (supra) for we
have applied it a number of times. That is the pendency of an Appeal or the
grant of interim stay does not wipe out a Judgment under Appeal leave
alone quash it. Once we are of the view that the Full Bench Judgment of
the Delhi High Court had only persuasive value, then, the order passed by
the Public Information Officer and confirmed by the Appellate Authority
can hardly be termed as perverse or vitiated by a error of law apparent on
::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:59:21 :::
Rng 22
wp1203.13
the face of the record. The authorities have informed that so long as the
Hon'ble Supreme Court is seized of the larger and core issues of
applicability of the Right to Information Act and the nature of the
information which is under the control of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, then,
the authorities did not commit any error of law nor can their conclusions
are palpably erroneous requiring our interference in writ jurisdiction. It is
conceded before us that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is seized of the
issue and particularly noted in the order reported in 2011 1 SCC 496
C.P.IO.vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal. There the respondent-Subhash
Chandra Agarwal had sought information regarding the correspondence
exchanged between the Constitutional Authorities with file notings relating
to the appointment of certain Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India. The Public Information Officer, Supreme Court replied to the
Applicant informing him that the Registry does not deal with the matter
pertaining to appointment of Judges and therefore, the prescribed procedure
does not require the Registry to maintain the information is "neither
available nor maintained." Subhash Chandra Agarwal preferred an Appeal
before the Appellate Authority and that authority set aside the orders
passed to the above effect and directed the Public Information Officer,
::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:59:21 :::
Rng 23
wp1203.13
Supreme Court to furnish the information sought.
1