Which provisions of maharashtra rent control Act is applicable to tenants of public undertaking?

 In the circumstances, we hold as follows:

(a) The provisions of the Maharastra Rent Control Act, 1999 with respect to fixation of Standard Rent for premises, and requiring the landlord not to cut off or withhold essential supply or service, and to restore the same when necessary, are not in conflict with or repugnant to any of the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.

(b) The provisions of the Public Premises Act, 1971 shall govern the relationship between the public undertakings covered under the Act and their occupants to the extent they provide for eviction of unauthorised occupants from public premises, recovery of arrears of rent or damages for such unauthorised occupation, and other incidental matters specified under the Act.

(c) The provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 shall govern the relationship between the public undertakings and their occupants to the extent this Act covers the other aspects of the relationship between the landlord and tenants, not covered under the Public Premises Act, 1971.

(d) The application of Appellant and similar applications of the tenants for fixation of Standard Rent or for restoration of essential supplies and services when necessary, shall be maintainable under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 7171 /2010 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 34125 of 2009)

Decided On: 19.09.2011

Banatwala and Company Vs.  L.I.C of India 

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.V. Raveendran and H.L. Gokhale, JJ.

Citation: (2011) 13 SCC 446

Read full judgment here: Click here

Print Page

Whether public authority is required to hear accused prior to grant of sanction for prosecution?

 We may also observe that grant or refusal of sanction is not a quasi judicial function and the person for whose prosecution the sanction is sought is not required to be heard by the Competent Authority before it takes a decision in the matter. What is required to be seen by the Competent Authority is whether the facts placed before it which, in a given case, may include the material collected by the complainant or the investigating agency prima facie disclose commission of an offence by a public servant. If the Competent Authority is satisfied that the material placed before it is sufficient for prosecution of the public servant, then it is required to grant sanction. If the satisfaction of the Competent Authority is otherwise, then it can refuse sanction. In either case, the decision taken on the complaint made by a citizen is required to be communicated to him and if he feels aggrieved by such decision, then he can avail appropriate legal remedy.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 1193 of 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 27535 of 2010)

Decided On: 31.01.2012

 Subramanian Swamy  Vs.  Manmohan Singh and Ors.

Print Page

Whether public authority can be directed to preserve information for any period longer that provided under rules of that public authority?

The right to access information does not extend beyond the period during which the examining body is expected to retain the answer-books. In the case of CBSE, the answer-books are required to be maintained for a period of three months and thereafter they are liable to be disposed of/destroyed. Some other examining bodies are required to keep the answer-books for a period of six months. The fact that right to information is available in regard to answer-books does not mean that answer-books will have to be maintained for any longer period than required under the rules and regulations of the public authority. The obligation under the RTI Act is to make available or give access to existing information or information which is expected to be preserved or maintained. If the rules and regulations governing the functioning of the respective public authority require preservation of the information for only a limited period, the applicant for information will be entitled to such information only if he seeks the information when it is available with the public authority. For example, with reference to answer-books, if an examinee makes an application to CBSE for inspection or grant of certified copies beyond three months (or six months or such other period prescribed for preservation of the records in regard to other examining bodies) from the date of declaration of results, the application could be rejected on the ground that such information is not available. The power of the Information Commission under Section 19(8) of the RTI Act to require a public authority to take any such steps as may be necessary to secure compliance with the provision of the Act, does not include a power to direct the public authority to preserve the information, for any period larger than what is provided under the rules and regulations of the public authority.

30. On behalf of the Respondents/examinees, it was contended that having regard to Sub-section (3) of Section 8 of RTI Act, there is an implied duty on the part of every public authority to maintain the information for a minimum period of twenty years and make it available whenever an application was made in that behalf. This contention is based on a complete misreading and misunderstanding of Section 8(3). The said Sub-section nowhere provides that records or information have to be maintained for a period of twenty years. The period for which any particular records or information has to be maintained would depend upon the relevant statutory rule or regulation of the public authority relating to the preservation of records. Section 8(3) provides that information relating to any occurrence, event or matters which has taken place and occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under Section 6, shall be provided to any person making a request. This means that where any information required to be maintained and preserved for a period beyond twenty years under the rules of the public authority, is exempted from disclosure under any of the provisions of Section 8(1) of RTI Act, then, notwithstanding such exemption, access to such information shall have to be provided by disclosure thereof, after a period of twenty years except where they relate to information falling under Clauses (a), (c) and (i) of Section 8(1). In other words, Section 8(3) provides that any protection against disclosure that may be available, under Clauses (b), (d) to (h) and (j) of Section 8(1) will cease to be available after twenty years in regard to records which are required to be preserved for more than twenty years. Where any record or information is required to be destroyed under the rules and regulations of a public authority prior to twenty years, Section 8(3) will not prevent destruction in accordance with the Rules. Section 8(3) of RTI Act is not therefore a provision requiring all 'information' to be preserved and maintained for twenty years or more, nor does it override any rules or regulations governing the period for which the record, document or information is required to be preserved by any public authority.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011 

Decided On: 09.08.2011

Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors.

Print Page

Whether public authority is required to furnish unavailable information under RTI?

At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of Section 3 and the definitions of 'information' and 'right to information' under Clauses (f) and (j) of Section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analyzed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in Section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant. A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in Section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011 

Decided On: 09.08.2011

Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.V. Raveendran and A.K. Patnaik, JJ.

Citation: (2011) 8 SCC 497

Print Page

Whether offence of cheating and forgery is made out against public authority who has issued certificate on basis of affidavit of applicant?

 It is interesting to note here that the applicant has certified about the correctness of address and also undergoing of Kisan Sampat Gavhane operation of vasectomy on the basis of affidavit submitted to him by Kisan. When a person submits an affidavit, as seen from the language of the disputed Form, the authority which certifies the contents of the affidavit to be correct, would normally rely upon the statements made on oath by the deponent himself and this is what appears to have happened in this case. The disputed certificate appears below the so-called affidavit of the deponent by name Kisan and it only states that the information contained (in the above affidavit), to the knowledge of the applicant, is correct. The knowledge of the applicant in such a case would be based upon the record before him and the record would be in the nature of affidavit of the concerned person. Therefore, as stated earlier, it was necessary for respondent no. 1 to have produced in evidence some circumstances disclosing that in spite of bringing to the knowledge of the applicant the fact of non-

existence or non-residence of Kisan, the applicant did not make any amends and claimed amount of Rs.20/-. Had such circumstances been brought in the evidence of respondent no. 1 then only it could have been possible that the unrebutted evidence of respondent no. 1 was prima facie sufficient to warrant conviction of the applicant. Such not being the case, I am of the view that the impugned orders are against the well settled principles of law and need to be quashed and set aside.

Bombay High Court

Uttam S/O Patruji Khobragade vs Shri Omprakash S/O Damodhar Rawat ... on 20 February, 2015

Bench: S.B. Shukre

Citation; 2015(3) crimes 458 Bom

Print Page

Whether deemed university is public authority as per RTI Act?

In   view   of   above,   argument   advanced   by   learned
Counsel for petitioners that petitioner no.2 cannot be included
within the ambit of “public authority' as provided under Section
2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, is not acceptable and is
devoid of substance.
14 So far as status of petitioner no.1 is concerned, it is
contended that petitioner no.1 is a Trust and is not receiving any
grant­in­aid or substantial finance from the State and as such, is

not the “public authority”.  The order impugned in this petition is
directed against petitioner no.2, which, according to petitioners, is
an   independent   entity,   i.e.   Trust   registered   under   the   Bombay
Public  Trusts  Act   and   a  society,  registered   under  the  Societies
Registration   Act   and   further   has   been   declared   as   a   deemed
university   under   the   notification   issued   by   the   Central
Government.  Since the direction is issued against petitioner no.2
alone, the contentions raised by petitioners in respect of petitioner
no.1, need not be answered.    We do not propose to deal with the
argument advanced concerning status of petitioner no.1 as the
question really does not fall for our consideration in the instant
petition, since the direction is issued only as against petitioner
no.2.  The challenge raised in the petition, as such, falls.  
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
 WRIT PETITION NO.590 OF 2009 
 Pravara Medical Trust
   at Loni, 
Versus
 The Union of India,
  
        CORAM : R.M.BORDE &
                                        V.K.JADHAV, JJ.

Pronounced on       : 10th  October, 201
citation; AIR 2015(NOC) 880 Bom

Print Page

Whether court can grant injunction if act of Public authority is not declared as void or illegal?

Plaintiff did not seek relief of declaration that the defendants have no power to disconnect the power supply or to interfere with the enjoyment of power supply based on the said letter of defendant No. 2 or for declaration that the defendants have no power either under the Act or Regulations to effect disconnection of power supply in respect of a claim made in the said letter. In the absence of seeking relief of declaration depending on facts of a case, the plaintiff cannot seek relief of permanent injunction so as to restrain the statutory body from performing its functions and duties.

Karnataka High Court

I.N. Mahabaleswara Madyasta vs Karnataka Electricity Board, ... on 6 October, 1993

Equivalent citations: AIR 1994 Kant 74, ILR 1993 KAR 3398, 1994 (1) KarLJ 214

Bench: S Patil

Print Page