Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 9 to 12 of 12

Thread: Important CIC decision regarding Passports

  1. #9

    Re: Important CIC decision regarding Passports


    Quote Originally Posted by Bimal Kumar Khemani View Post
    Dear Friends,
    I am going to ask the
    inistry of Foreign affairs about this judgement and the action taken on PIO as per the Service conditions rules.
    Kindly help me in providing the relavent section of the Service conditions rules. as framed by DOPT/Govt. of India.
    Good decision !!!!!!!!!!!



  2. #10
    Posts
    44,017
    Name:
    C J Karira
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    546

    Re: Important CIC decision regarding Passports


    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


    LPA 576/2009


    UNION OF INDIA and ORS .....
    Appellants
    Through Mr. Sachin Datta, Advocate



    versus


    CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
    and ANR .....
    Respondents

    CORAM:
    HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
    HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR

    O R D E R
    10.11.2009

    CM APPL No. 15944-45/2009

    Exemptions allowed subject to all just exceptions.

    Applications are disposed of.


    CM APPL No. 15943 (delay)

    1. There is a delay of 168 days in filing this appeal.

    2. Having examined the application for condonation of delay, we are not
    satisfied with the reasons furnished. Despite a copy of the impugned order being
    available to the Appellant on 11th May 2009, the appeal was filed on 30th
    October 2009 on the ground that no counsel was nominated by the Central
    Government to handle the case till then.

    3. The application is accordingly dismissed.

    LPA No. 576/2009 and CM APPL No. 15942/2009 (stay)

    4. Although this appeal is liable to be dismissed consequent upon the dismissal
    of the application for condonation of delay, even on merits we find that this is
    not a case where the Appellant Union of India should have persisted with the
    litigation.



    5. At the outset it needs to be observed that in UPSC v. Shiv Shambhu 2008 (IX)
    AD (Delhi) 289 this Court has held that where the order of the Central
    Information Commission (CIC) is challenged, the CIC itself is neither a
    necessary nor a proper party. Consequently, the CIC is struck off from the array
    of parties in the present appeal. Accordingly the cause title of the present
    appeal will read as Union of India and Ors. v. Dr. Ajay Kumar Jain.


    6. The challenge before the learned Single Judge was to an order dated 31st July
    2008 passed by the CIC dismissing a petition seeking recall of an earlier order
    dated 15th May 2008 whereby the CIC had directed the Appellant to issue
    passports to the Respondent No.2 Dr. Jain, his wife, and his son without delay
    and also pay the Respondent Dr. Jain compensation of Rs.5,000/- for the mental
    agony and harassment caused to him.


    7. In the impugned judgment the learned Single Judge has, after discussing the
    merits, concluded that although the CIC was justified in issuing directions to
    the Appellant to issue passports to the Respondent, his wife and son, it erred
    in directing payment of compensation. Therefore, while setting aside that part
    of the order of the CIC awarding the compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the
    Respondent Dr. Jain within a period of four weeks, the learned Single Judge
    awarded Dr. Jain costs of Rs.55,000/-.


    8. We do not see any reason why the Union of India should have persisted in
    filing an appeal when the learned Single Judge has in fact accepted its
    contention and set aside that part of the order of the CIC which directed the
    Appellant to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the Respondent Dr. Jain. In our
    view, since the amount involved was meagre, the Union of India should have in
    the first place avoided filing even a writ petition. In any event after that
    part of the order of the CIC was set aside, there was no justifiable reason to
    challenge the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. The costs of
    Rs.55,000/- levied by the learned Single Judge was perfectly justified and does
    not call for interference.


    9. We are not a little surprised that notwithstanding the concern expressed
    recently in public by the Attorney General for India about the filling of
    unnecessary appeals by the Union of India, there are instances like the present
    one, where to avoid paying Rs.5,000/-, the Union of India persists with
    litigation, incurring a more expense in the process.


    10. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal with costs of Rs.20,000/- which will be
    paid by the Union of India to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee
    within a period of two weeks from today. Proof of payment of costs be placed on
    record within a period of one week thereafter. The application for stay is
    dismissed.


    CHIEF JUSTICE




    S. MURALIDHAR, J.


    NOVEMBER 10, 2009
    rk
    LPA No. 576/2009
    Page 1 of 4
    Twitter: @cjkarira

  3. Re: Important CIC decision regarding Passports


    but what the the conduct rules to be excersied on the PIO, Mr. Sengar ????

  4. #12

    Re: Important CIC decision regarding Passports



    Thanks Karira
    After getting the order we have exercised the following RTI . Dated the 3 rd December , 2009.


    The Central Public Information Officer, Addl. Legal Adviser, Ministry of Law & Justice, Department of Legal Affairs, Room No. 406-B, ‘A’ Wing, Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi-110001.


    1) Central Information Commission has awarded compensation of Rs. 5000/- vide their
    decision no. No.CIC/OK/A/2008/00001 Dated 15-05-08,
    2) Delhi High Court , WP(C) 6661/2008 filed and signed by the concerned officer on behalf of GOI, in its decision Hon Mr. Justice S.RAVINDRA BHAT has increased the amount of compensation to Rs.55,000/- as per his order dt. 16-04-09
    3) Delhi High Court, LPA 576/2009 filed and signed by the concerned officer on behalf of GOI, in its decision Hon. The Chief Justice and Hon’ble Dr. Justice S.Muralidhar, bench has further ordered to deposit another 20,000/- as cost, justifying the earlier order dated 16-04-09.
    Copies of all the above 3 orders enclosed for ready reference.

    Under the provisions of The Right to Information Act, 2005 , we enclose herewith an Indian Postal order for Rs. 10/- bearing no. 79E 760388 with a request to kindly furnish the following information.

    1. Please provide us with the copy of request made by the Public Authority for filling the
    above WP(C) and LPA before the High Court and the copy of concurrence as granted
    with the copy of file noting and note sheet.
    2. Please provide us the self attested copy of the procedures adopted for engagement of Council/advocate as per O.M.No.F.34(14)//2005-Judl., dt. 18th July, 2005, in the above case with copy of file noting and note sheets.
    3. Please provide me with the copy of guidelines for fixing the personal liability and realization of the compensation money from the erring persons
    4. Please provide me with the self attested copy of the departmental guidelines/ rules
    issued for initiating disciplinary / punitive actions.
    BIMAL KUMAR KHEMANI
    a CONSUMER and RTI activist
    ALIGARH, U.P.
    ****************************
    Officially Certified A Grade by DoPT

    ****************************

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Tags for this Thread



About RTI INDIA

    RTI INDIA: Invoking Your Rights. We provide easy ways to request, analyze & share Government documents by use of Right to Information and by way of community support.

Follow us on

Twitter Facebook RSS Feed Apple App Store Google Play for Android