|S.No.||HIGH COURT CASE||DATE OF JUDGMENT||JUDGMENT|
|1||CWP No. 24954 of 2014||05 Aug, 2016||O.P. Kajal Vs. State Information Commission, Haryana and another
Review of the earlier order by the State Information Commission whether tenable?
The Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana held that in the absence of the review, the earlier orders could not have been modified by the impugned order. It is settled principle that review is a creature of the statute. Even otherwise as noticed from the facts above that the petitioner was aggrieved against then on implementation of the earlier order, but the Commission choose to withdraw the relief already granted. In such circumstances, the impugned order cannot be justified and same is quashed. The respondent Commission shall re-decide the issue, why the order had not been complied with for which the show cause notice had been issued.
|2||W.P. (C) No. 31947 of 2013 (P)||31 Jan, 2014||John Numpeli (Junior) vs The Public Information Officer & others
This writ petition the petitioner prays for an order directing the first respondent to certify the copies of documents furnished to him pursuant to Ext.P1 application as copies issued under the Act. The petitioner has also prayed for an order directing the first respondent to furnish to him with copy of the No Objection Certificate issued by the Fire and Rescue Services Department.
The Hon’ble High Court he allowed the writ petition and directed the first respondent to issue a fresh set of documents sought for in Ext.P1 application other than the No Objection Certificate issued by the W.P(C)No.31947/2013 Fire and Rescue Services Department on the petitioner paying the requisite fees and to certify the copies as copies issued under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
|3||W.P. 3381/2011||30 Oct, 2013||Ajay Kumar Gulati Vs. Pushpender Nath Pandey & Anr.
Section 7(1)-Supply Information – the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that the respondent –bank has filed an affidavit of its General Manager stating therein that the information sought by the petitioner could not be provided to him as the same was not traceable and is still not traceable in the bank, despite best efforts to trace the said information. In view of the categorical affidavit filed by none other than the General Manager of the Bank, it is quite clear that the information to the extent it is not supplied to the petitioner is not available with the bank in any form. Since the information is not available with the bank, there can be no question of granting any direction to the bank to provide the same to the petitioner.
|4||W.P.(S) 1629/2013||05 Sep, 2013||Sunita Kumari Hembrom & Anr. Vs. Jharkhand Public Service Commission & Ors.
Section 7 – Supply of Information- there is no rule imposing duty upon J.P.S.C. to publish the result of unsuccessful candidates, who applied for and have not qualified in the selection exercise undertaken by the respondents. Information can be obtained by the petitioners so far as it relates to their own case under the relevant provision of Right to Information Act, 2005, which they have prima facie case is made out that they have been discriminated against in the matter of selection, recommendation and appointment under Scheduled Tribe Category, category for the said post in the selection exercise, only then interference under writ jurisdiction is warranted. At this stage, petitioners have failed to make out a case for any interference by this Court.
|5||W.P. (C) 4048/2012||22 Jul, 2013||Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board Vs. Pushpendra Singh
Section 7(1) Supply of Information – the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that the Apex Court has clearly upheld the right of the examinee to have inspection as well the copy of his answer book, even if the rules and regulations of the examining body prohibit such inspection and/or copy. If the answer sheet is still available, the respondent is certainly entitled to its copy. If the answer sheet has already been destroyed, there can be no direction for supplying its copy to the respondent. The petitioner shall file an affidavit of the concerned Deputy Secretary to this effect while disclosing the date of destruction and supported by the requisite documents evidencing such destruction.
|6||C.W.P. 8794/2011-J||06 Mar, 2013||Ved Prakash Vs. State Information Commission, Himachal Pradesh & Ors
Section 7(1) – Supply of Information the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh held that respondent no.3 and 4 have not supplied the information within the period prescribed under section 7 of the Act and have knowingly given incorrect and misleading information. The respondent no.4, in addition to this, has also destroyed the information and has also obstructed the supply of information to the petitioner. It was the duty of respondent No.4 to supply the information as per sub-section (5) of section 5 of the Act, but he has failed to do so. the respondent no.1 besides imposing penalty upon respondent No.3 and 4, ought to have awarded compensation to the petitioner. A penalty of Rs. 10,000/- each is imposed upon respondent no.3 for supplying knowingly incorrect information and respondent no.4 for knowingly giving incorrect and misleading information, destruction of information and obstructing the information. The petitioner is also held entitled to compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the loss and detriment suffered by him to be paid proportionately by respondents No.3 and 4.