REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Rakesh Choubey Appellant

V/S

STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

ANJALI BHARDWAJ AND OTHERS V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE H H ANNISH GOWDA VS. C D GOVINDA RAO [REFERRED TO]
B S MINHAS VS. INDIAN STATISTICAL INSTITUTE [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. K V JANKIRAMAN [REFERRED TO]
KUMAR PADMA PRASAD VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
KASHINATH G JALMI ANOTHER RAMAKANT D KHALAP CHURCHILL ALEMAO VS. SPEAKER [REFERRED TO]
R K JAIN R K JAIN VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SUPREME COURT ADVOCATES ON RECORD ASSOCIATION S P GUPTA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
CHANCELLOR DR PRAFULLA KUMAR MOHAPATRA VS. BIJAYANANDA KAR:BIJAYANANDA KAR [REFERRED TO]
DURYODHAN SAHU VS. JITENDRA KUMAR MISHRA [REFERRED TO]
B R KAPUR VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
MOR MODERN COOPERATIVE TRANSPORT SOCIETY LIMITED VS. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT VS. GUJARAT KISHAN MAZDOOR PANCHAYAT [REFERRED TO]
ARUN SINGH ALIAS ARUN KUMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
VALSALA KUMARI DEVI M VS. DIRECTOR HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION [REFERRED TO]
N KANNADASAN VS. AJOY KHOSE [REFERRED TO]
MAHESH CHANDRA GUPTA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
HARI BANSH LAL VS. SAHODAR PRASAD MAHTO [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED TO]
NAMIT SHARMA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH AWASTHI VS. NAND LAL JAISWAL [REFERRED TO]
M. MANOHAR REDDY VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. NAMIT SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL ELECTRICITY SUPPLY VS. DHOBEI SAHOO [REFERRED TO]
RENU VS. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, TIS HAZARI [REFERRED TO]
REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF MADRAS VS. R. GANDHI [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. P GUNASEKARAN [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Seeking writ in the nature of quo warranto against respondent No.3 in and against respondents No.3 to 6 in W.P. (PIL)No.46/2019, these two writ petitions have been preferred requiring those respondents to show cause under what authority of law they continue to hold the office of Chief Information Commissioner {respondent No.3 in and Information Commissioners {respondents No.4 to 6 in W.P.(PIL) under Section 15(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, 'the Act of 2005') and consequently seeking quashment and setting aside of their orders of appointment as Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners, respectively, on the said posts by way of these two writ petitions styled as "public interest litigation".

(2.) Since both the writ petitions involve common question of law and fact, they are being disposed of by this common order.

(3.) Essential facts shorn of all paraphernalia requisite to adjudicate the lis in these two writ petitions state as under: - Brief factual background: -

Click here to view full judgment.

RAKESH CHOUBEY Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address