|S.No.||HIGH COURT CASE||DATE OF JUDGMENT||JUDGMENT|
|1||W.P.(C) 5636/2016 and CM No. 23383/2016||23 Nov, 2017||UNION OF INDIA AND ANR vs CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION AND ANR
The petitioner (Union of India) has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning an order dated 12.03.2016 (hereafter „the impugned order‟) passed by the Central Information Commission (hereafter „CIC‟). By the impugned order, the CIC has declared “the Ministers in the Union Government and all State Governments as ‘public authorities’ under Section 2(h) of Right to Information Act, 2005”.
In these circumstances, there was no occasion for the CIC to enter upon the question as to whether a Minister is a „public authority‟ under Section 2(h) of the Act. Further, directions issued by the CIC are also wholly outside the scope of the matter before CIC.
|2||Writ Petition No. 310 of 2014||13 Mar, 2015||The University of Pune vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Whether State Information Commission, in exercise of powers under Section 18 of the RTI Act, has jurisdiction to issue directions for the deletion / correction of circular issued by the Vice Chancellor in exercise of statutory powers.
The power of Information Commission under section 19(8) of RTI Act to require public authority to take any such steps as may be necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of the Act, does not include a power to direct the public authority to preserve the information for any period larger than what is provided under the rules and regulations of the public authority.
|3||W.P. (C) 6088/2014 & CM Nos. 14799/2014, 14800/2014 & 14801/2014||12 Sep, 2014||Ministry of Railways vs Girish Mittal
The petitioners have assailed the impugned order dated 11.03.2013 contending that the CIC erred in imposing penalty pursuant to proceedings that had been filed by the respondent directly before the CIC without approaching the First Appellate Authority (FAA). It was submitted that a direct appeal against denial of information by Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) or a grievance with regard to non-supply of information could not be agitated before the CIC without first exhausting the remedies of appeal before the FAA. It was contended that, in these circumstances, the penalty imposed by CIC was without jurisdiction. The Hon’ble Court held that certain information which was not provided to respondent would be available with the Railway Board and the CPIO was required to furnish the same. He cannot escape his responsibility to provide the information by simply stating that the queries were forwarded to other officials. Undeniably, the directions of CIC were not complied with.
|4||Civil Writ Petition No. 4340 of 2014||25 Mar, 2014||Munish Kumar Sharma Vs State of Haryana
Petitioner has approached this Court, praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the selection and appointment of respondent Nos. 3 to 5 as the State Information Commissioners. The contention is that the Selection Committee is required to appoint the State Information Commissioners through consensus and, therefore, the recommendation of the leader of opposition, who is one of the Member of the Selection Committee, is mandatory, whereas consent of the said member has not been obtained.
The assertion of the petitioner that consent of the leader of opposition is mandatory, within no recommendation of the committee constituted under section 15(3) of the RTI Act would be in accordance with law, cannot be accepted as there is no such mandate under the statute. Writ petition is not maintainable and dismissed.
|5||W.P. (C) 6755/2012||28 Oct, 2013||J.K. Mittal Vs. Central Information Commission & Anr.
Section 18 Powers of the Commission while considering a complaint – Section 19 (3) Directions of the Commission to concerned CPIO to provide the information which the complainant had sought from him.- the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that while considering a complaint made under section 18 of the Act, the Commission cannot direct the concerned CPIO to provide the information which the complainant had sought from him. Such a power can only be exercised when a Second Appeal in terms of sub-section (3) of section 19 is preferred before the Commission.
|6||W.P. (C) 2491/2010||22 Aug, 2013||The Public Information Officer & Anr. Vs. Shri Somen Kumar Bose
It was beyond the jurisdiction of the Commission to direct the petitioner to provide an affidavit to the respondent, giving the reasons for not initiating the disciplinary proceedings and not issuing the charge sheet.
|7||W.P. (C) 4722/2013||05 Aug, 2013||Bharat Bhushan Srivastava Vs. Principal Director, The Comptroller & Auditor General of India
The petitioner contended that incase the record is not traceable, the commission should have invoked its powers under section 19(8)(b) of RTI Act, which powers the Commission to direct the Public Authority concerned to compensate the complainant for any loss or any other detriment suffered by him – the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that this provision should be invoked only where the record, despite being available, is not provided to the applicant and as a result thereof he suffers some loss for which he needs to be compensated. A bona fide inability to trace the old records cannot warrant levy of compensation.
|8||W.P. (C) 1388/2012||18 Jul, 2013||Reserve Bank of India Vs. Kishanlal Mittal
Section 19(3) – Second Appeal to Central Information Commission-Commission not to pass an order which contains only directions, without giving reasons for setting aside the order passed by the FAA, since in the event of the order being challenged before a Writ Court the said Court would not be in a position to know what were the reasons which impelled the Commission to set aside the order passed by the First Appellate Authority. Matter remitted back to the CIC to pass fresh orders.