RAVI RANJAN, SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
Harishankar Barik – Appellant
Versus
Information Commissioner – Respondent
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
I.A. No.5122 of 2020
This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 195 daysin preferring this Letters Patent Appeal.
2. Heard parties.
3. Having regard to the averments made in the application and submissions made on behalf of the parties, we are of the view that the appellant was prevented from sufficient cause in filing the appeal within the period of limitation. As such, the delay of 195daysin preferring the appeal is hereby condoned.
4. I.A. No. 5122 of 2020 stands allowed.
L.P.A. No.74 of 2019
5. Theinstant intra-court appeal, preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 20.06.2018 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.1873 of 2016 whereby and where under the writ petition has been dismissed refusing to interfere with the order dated 10.03.2016 by which the Information Commissioner, Jharkhand State Information Commission has directed the writ petitioner to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.40,000/- in exercise of power conferred under Section 19(8)(b) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
6. Brief facts of the case as per t
State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Singhara Singh and Ors.
Babu Verghese and Ors. vs. Bar Council of Kerala and Ors.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala and Ors.
State of Jharkhand and Ors. vs. Ambay Cements and Anr.
Zuari Cement Ltd. vs. Regional Direction ESIC Hyderabad and Ors., (In Civil Appeal No.5138-40/2007)
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.