The information to be accessed/certified copies on the judicial side to be obtained through the mechanism provided under the High Court Rules, the provisions of the RTI Act shall not be resorted to.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).1966-1967 OF 2020

(Arising out of SLP(C) No.5840 of 2015)

CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER …..Appellant

VERSUS

HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AND 

ANOTHER …..Respondents

J U D G M E N T.     

                                       42. We do not find any merit in the above submission and that

such cumbersome procedure has to be adopted for furnishing the

information/certified copies of the documents. When there is an

effective machinery for having access to the information or obtaining

certified copies which, in our view, is a very simple procedure    filing of an application/affidavit with requisite court fee and stating

the reasons for which the certified copies are required, we do not

find any justification for invoking Section 11 of the RTI Act and adopt

a cumbersome procedure. This would involve wastage of both time

and fiscal resources which the preamble of the RTI Act itself intends

to avoid. 

43. We summarise our conclusion:-

(i) Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules stipulating

a third party to have access to the

information/obtaining the certified copies of the

documents or orders requires to file an

application/affidavit stating the reasons for seeking

the information, is not inconsistent with the provisions

of the RTI Act; but merely lays down a different

procedure as the practice or payment of fees, etc. for

obtaining information. In the absence of inherent

inconsistency between the provisions of the RTI Act

and other law, overriding effect of RTI Act would not

apply. 

(ii) The information to be accessed/certified copies on

the judicial side to be obtained through the

mechanism provided under the High Court Rules, the

provisions of the RTI Act shall not be resorted to.

44. In the light of aforesaid reasonings, the impugned order dated

13.03.2014 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in

Letters Patent Appeal No.1348 of 2013 is confirmed and these

appeals are dismissed. We place on record the valuable assistance

rendered by Mr. Atmaram N.S. Nadkarni as amicus.

..…………………….J.

 [R. BANUMATHI]

..…………………….J.

 [A.S. BOPANNA]

..……………………….J.

 [HRISHIKESH ROYNew Delhi;

March 04, 2020.

Pendency of cases not a ground for rejection of bail

BrowseCaseIQ TMFeaturesHelp

Login Sign U

Jaichand v. State Of Rajasthan

Rajasthan High Court

30 May, 1991

Judgment

S.Kejriwal:-

(1) Petitioners bail application was rejected by the trial court on the ground that about 20 cases are pending against the petitioner.

(2) Mr. Balwada argued that this is no ground for cancelling the bail application. In support of his argument, he placed reliance on jaipal v. State of rajasthan,1, wherein it has been held that if other cases were pending against the petitioner, in that case, the bail application should not have been rejected on that grand. I agree with the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and as such i am inclined to grant him bail u/s 439 cr. P. C. It is, therefore, order perfect accused petitioner jail hand be released on bail provided, he furnishes a personal bail bond in the sum of rs. 6,000/ - with two sureties the sum of rs. 3,000/ - each to the satisfaction of the trial court with the stipulation to appear in that court, as and when called upon to do so during the pendency of the trial against him in this case.

 
 

© 2017 Gauge Data Solutions Pvt. Ltd.