Difference between revisions of "DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v HARDWARI LAL RANA 2017 INSC 15 3 January 2017"

From Advocatespedia, ASSN: 138228
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with "'''BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE OF DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. HARDWARI LAL RANA [2017] INSC 15 (3 January 2017)''' '''Court Name''': Supreme Court of India...")
 
(No difference)

Latest revision as of 13:57, 1 July 2020

BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE OF DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. HARDWARI LAL RANA [2017] INSC 15 (3 January 2017)


Court Name: Supreme Court of India

Case Number: Civil Appeal no. 126 of 2017 with Civil Appeal No. 127 of 2017

Parties Involved: Delhi Development Authority (Appellants) and Hardwari Lal Rana & Ors (Respondents)

Decided On: 3 January 2017

Bench: Kurian Joseph J., Rohinton Fali Nariman J.

Type of Judgement: Non- Reportable



                                                                IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                                                                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                                                 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 126 OF 2017
                                                  [ARISING FROM SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 297 OF 2017]
                                             [ARISING FROM SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C).....CC. NO.24576 OF 2016]


                                                  DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY                .....APPELLANT(S)


                                                                             VERSUS


                                                  HARDWARI LAL RANA & ORS.                   ......RESPONDENT(S)
                                                                       
                                                                             WITH
     
                                                         CIVIL APPEAL NO. 127 OF 2017
                                           [ARISING FROM SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 297 OF 2017]
                                        [ARISING FROM SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C).....CC. NO.25119 OF 2016]



                                                                             ORDER


KURIAN, J.

1. Leave Granted and Delay condoned

2. It was held in this case that the issue, in principle, is covered against the appellant by judgments in Civil Appeal No. 8477 of 2016 arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 8467 of 2015 and Civil Appeal No. 5811 of 2015 arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 21545 of 2015. The appeals are dismissed.

3. The Hon’ble Court held that due to the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases, the appellant is given a period of one year to exercise its liberty granted under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for initiation of the acquisition proceedings afresh.

4. The court made it clear that in this case no fresh acquisition proceedings are initiated within the said period of one year from today by issuing a Notification under Section 11 of the Act, the appellant if in possession, shall return the physical possession of the lands to the owners.

5. If any applications are pending, the Court decided to dispose it off.


6. No costs to be levied.


ABOUT RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT

1) Right to information popularly known as RTI is a fundamental right given by our constitution under article 19.1. The article 19.1 says that every citizen has freedom of speech and expression. In 1976 the Supreme Court said that people could not speak or express themselves unless they know. Therefore the Right to Information is embedded in article 19.1 and is a fundamental right.

2) In the same case court also said that India is a democracy and peoples are the masters; therefore, the masters or the people have a right to know how the government means to serve them are functioning. Further, every citizen pays taxes; the citizens, therefore, have a right to know how their money was being spent.


RTI INCLUDES THE RIGHT TO

1) To inspect works, document and records.

2) To take notes, extracts, or certified copies of documents and records.

3) Take certified samples of material.

4) To obtain information in the form of printouts, diskettes


FEATURES THAT MAKE RTI A UNIQUE ACT


1) It was a Right based enactment

2) Enacted due to the pressure of society


RELEVANT SECTIONS APPLICABLE


(A) Section 24(2) of The Right To Information Act, 2005 which is a Central Government Act states as follows: -

(2) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, amend the Schedule by including therein any other intelligence or security organisation established by that Government or omitting therefrom any organisation already specified therein and on the publication of such notification, such organisation shall be deemed to be included in or, as the case may be, omitted from the Schedule.

(B) As per The Right to Information Act, 2005, Section 11 has stated the provisions for Third party information which are as follows—

(1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information: Provided that except in the case of trade or commercial secrets protected by law, disclosure may be allowed if the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interests of such third party.

(2) Where a notice is served by the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under sub‑section (1) to a third party in respect of any information or record or part thereof, the third party shall, within ten days from the date of receipt of such notice, be given the opportunity to make representation against the proposed disclosure.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 7, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within forty days after receipt of the request under section 6, if the third party has been given an opportunity to make a representation under sub‑section (2), make a decision as to whether or not to disclose the information or record or part thereof and give in writing the notice of his decision to the third party.

(4) A notice given under sub‑section (3) shall include a statement that the third party to whom the notice is given is entitled to prefer an appeal under section 19 against the decision.



WEBSITES REFERRED

1) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/641228/

2) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/39713/

3) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/152514307/

4) https://pscnotes.in/right-to-information-act-2005-rti/