Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AJIT KUMAR, SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI
Shailesh Kumar Yadav Ips – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Swarupama Chaturvedi, J.
1. Heard Sri C.B. Yadav, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Nisheeth Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for respondents concerned and Sri Vinay Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1, Union of India.
2. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking reliefs against the orders passed under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 08.02.2007 and 19.03.2007 passed by Dr O. P. Kejriwal, Information Commissioner, Central Information Commission. The petitioner further seeks issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to give effect to the aforesaid orders dated 08.02.2007 and 19.03.2007, so far as they relate to the petitioner. The petitioner also prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to drop the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner in pursuance of the above mentioned order dat
Penalty and disciplinary recommendation under RTI Act Section 20 require persistent default without reasonable cause; institutional delays from workload and staff shortage not personal fault; biased,....
Right to Information - Required fee and produce challan receipt - Section 7(3)(b) says about the details to be mentioned in intimation, including details of appellate authority, time limit etc.
The court established that the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, 2005 should be strictly construed, and the Commissioner must ensure that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide b....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that while the imposition of penalty on CPIOs under Section 20 of the RTI Act is mandatory, the quantum of penalty is discretionary and can vary de....
Officers can only be penalized for information delays if they were in charge at the time of the request; newly appointed officers are not liable for prior delays.
Public Information Officer is not liable for delays not caused during their tenure; penalties require evidence of wrongdoing and loss to justify compensation under the Right to Information Act.
Public Information Officers can only be penalized under RTI for failures occurring during their tenure when a request was made, not retroactively for former officers' actions.
Imposing a penalty under RTI Act, 2005 requires the Public Information Officer to be given a chance to be heard, and liability under Section 20 cannot apply retroactively to an officer who was not in....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
