Total Pageviews

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 154
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
CWP No. 15288 of 2007
S.P. Arora, State Public Information Officer-cum-Estate Officer, HUDA
v.
State Information Commission, Haryana
{Decided on 17/10/2008}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.1: Mr. Sunil Nehra, AAG, Haryana.
For the Respondent No.3: None.
IMPORTANT POINT
Right to Information--Harassment--Penalty--Penalty can be imposed only if there is no reasonable cause for not furnishing information within 30 days--Right to seek information not to be extended to extent that even if file is not available for good reasons still steps are required to be taken by office to procure the file to supply information.
(A) Right to Information--Harassment--Penalty--Information sought in respect of steps taken for transfer of plot on 29.1.2007 when file was lying with bank in relation to project of computerization of official record--Information supplied on 10.4.2007 after files finally returned on 30.3.2007--Applicant filed appeal before Chief Administrator, appellate authority on 15.3.2007 i.e. within a period of six weeks after filing application for requisite information--Also proper--Held; That one Appellate Authority recorded satisfaction of applicant in respect of supply of information, it was not open to applicant to continue with appeal pending before State Information Commission--Instead of refusing to entertain appeal under Section 19 on ground of satisfaction State Information imposing penalty on petitioner--Not justified--Order imposing penalty not sustainable--|Right to Information Act, 2005, Section 19 & 20. (Paras 9, 10 & 11)
(B) Right to Information--Harassment--Penalty--Penalty can be imposed only if there is no reasonable cause for not furnishing information within 30 days--Right to seek information not to be extended to extent that even if file is not available for good reasons still steps are required to be taken by office to procure the file to supply information--|Right to Information Act, 2005, Section 19. (Para 8)
--------------
Dalip Singh v. Director Rural Develp. & Pancht. Punjab
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) (DB) 157
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
(DIVISION BENCH)
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.S. Khehar
The Hon’ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
Civil Writ Petition No.10003 of 2005
Dalip Singh
v.
Director Rural Development & Panchayats Punjab
{Decided on 12/11/2008}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sarjit Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S S Brar, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.1: Mr. Parveen Chander Goyal, Addl. AG, Punjab.
For the Respondent No. 2: Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Question of title--Not to be decided in summary proceedings.
Revenue Law--Village Common Land--Question of title--Collector holding summary proceedings for disposing suit under Section 11--Not proper--Held; That while deciding question of title in suit filed under Section 11 it was incumbent for the Collector, to frame issues, allow the parties to lead evidence in respect of the respective issues, and record specific finding on each of the issue--Suit remanded back to collector for fresh decision--|Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, Section 11.
--------------
Surinder Singh v. State of Haryana
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 158
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. C. Puri
Criminal Revision No.1754 of 2008
Surinder Singh
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 11/12/2008}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Deepinder Singh Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Neeraj Bhutani, AASG Haryana.
IMPORTANT POINT
Rash and negligent driving--Prosecution not required to prove speed of vehicle but factum of rash negligent driving.
(A) Criminal Law--Rash and Negligent driving--Reduction in sentence--Accident accured when tractor driving at high speed in negligent manner hit the deceased and he succumbed to injuries at spot--Contention that in village path tractor cannot ply at high speed does not carry any weight--Prosecution not required to prove speed of vehicle but factum of rash and negligent driving--Eye witnesses supported case of prosecution on all material particulars--Concurrent finding of both Courts below regarding guilt of accused--Medical evidence corroborates version given by eye witness--Accused already undergone incarceration for a period of 3 months and 9 days and submitted compensation of Rs.65,000/- to legal heirs of deceased--Original sentence awarded was 2 year by first appellate Court--Accused taken life of minor boy--Courts have also to keep in mind plight of victim at time of awarding sentence--In facts and circumstance end of justice would be met in case sentence is reduced to nine months--|Penal Code, 1860, Section 279 and 304-A. (Paras 18, 21 & 22)
(B) Criminal Law--Rash and negligent driving--Prosecution not required to prove speed of vehicle but factum of rash negligent driving--|Penal Code, 1860, Section 279.

--------------------------