Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        2009 (4) TMI 515 - HC - Indian Laws

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Court corrects error in CIC decision, orders penalty deduction for delay in RTI Act compliance. The court found the CIC's decision to drop penalty proceedings under Section 20 of the RTI Act to be erroneous, as the delay in providing information was ...
                        Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                            Court corrects error in CIC decision, orders penalty deduction for delay in RTI Act compliance.

                            The court found the CIC's decision to drop penalty proceedings under Section 20 of the RTI Act to be erroneous, as the delay in providing information was acknowledged without imposing a penalty. The court directed the deduction of the penalty amount from the respondent's salary and awarded costs to the petitioner, emphasizing the importance of timely information disclosure and proper exercise of jurisdiction by the CIC.




                            Issues Involved:
                            1. Legality of the CIC's decision to drop penalty proceedings under Section 20 of the RTI Act.
                            2. Delay in providing information requested by the petitioner.
                            3. Validity of the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner.
                            4. Jurisdiction and discretion of the CIC in imposing penalties under Section 20 of the RTI Act.
                            5. Impact of judicial review on the CIC's decisions.

                            Detailed Analysis:

                            1. Legality of the CIC's Decision to Drop Penalty Proceedings:
                            The petitioner was aggrieved by the CIC's order dated 29-5-2006, which dropped penalty proceedings under Section 20 of the RTI Act. The CIC had noted that the information sought was eventually provided but only after the petitioner approached the CIC. Despite recognizing the delay and the lack of reasonable cause for it, the CIC chose not to impose a penalty but recommended disciplinary action against the concerned officer. The court found this decision to be erroneous, stating that the CIC failed to exercise its jurisdiction lawfully vested in it by not imposing the penalty despite the established delay.

                            2. Delay in Providing Information:
                            The petitioner sought information on 29-11-2005 regarding the service rules of SECL but did not receive a response, leading to multiple appeals. The CIC's orders on 27-3-2006 and 29-5-2006 confirmed that there was a delay in providing the information, which was eventually furnished only after the CIC's intervention. The court noted that the internal processes within SECL were insensitive to the petitioner's queries and that the delay was unjustified.

                            3. Validity of the Charge-Sheet Issued to the Petitioner:
                            The petitioner faced a charge-sheet for allegedly bypassing internal channels to seek information under the RTI Act. The court found this action to be unjustified and contrary to the purpose of the RTI Act, which does not require an applicant to demonstrate locus standi. The court emphasized that the petitioner was entitled to seek information under the Act, and the charge-sheet undermined this right.

                            4. Jurisdiction and Discretion of the CIC in Imposing Penalties:
                            Section 20 of the RTI Act allows the CIC to impose penalties for refusal to receive an application, not furnishing information within the specified time, or knowingly providing incorrect, incomplete, or misleading information. The court highlighted that the CIC, after noting the delay and lack of reasonable cause, should have imposed the penalty as mandated by the Act. The CIC's decision to recommend disciplinary action instead was found to be insufficient and not in line with the statutory requirements.

                            5. Impact of Judicial Review on the CIC's Decisions:
                            The court reiterated that judicial review can correct a Tribunal's failure to exercise jurisdiction lawfully or acting contrary to legal provisions. The court found that the CIC's decision to drop the penalty was an instance where it failed to exercise its jurisdiction properly. The court emphasized the importance of fostering an "openness culture" among public authorities and ensuring timely information disclosure as per the RTI Act.

                            Conclusion:
                            The court declared the CIC's order to drop the penalty as illegal and directed the third respondent to deduct the penalty amount of Rs. 25,000 from the sixth respondent's salary in five equal installments and deposit it with the Commission. Additionally, the third respondent was ordered to bear the cost of the proceedings, quantified at Rs. 50,000, to be paid to the petitioner within six weeks. The writ petition was allowed in these terms.
                            Full Summary is available for active users!
                            Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                            Topics

                            ActsIncome Tax
                            No Records Found