Dismissed

Ms Jane Cox v. Central Information Commission and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC16 Oct 2007WP/1952/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition by consent, striking through an order requiring information disclosure, while reserving the right of a specific agency to seek production of documents in a related writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 7th June 2007 was not to be given effect to; disclosure directions deleted subject to respondent No. 4's liberty to seek documents in WP 1728 of 2005.

Ms Jane Cox Vs Central Information… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J.

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.1952 OF 2007

¶4

Ms. Jane Cox ..Petitioner. Vs.

¶5

Central Information Commissioner and others

¶6

..Respondents.

¶7

Mr. C.U. Singh, Senior Advocate i/b Maria Sakharani for the Petitioner.

¶8

Mr. Shrinivasan with Mr. Kiran Kandpile for Respondents 1, 2, 3 and 5.

¶9

Ms. Veena Thadani i/b Ms. Sushma Singh for Respondent No.4.

¶10

CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 16^th October, 2007.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the order dated 7^th

¶13

June, 2007 passed by the Central Information Commissioner. In view of the course of action we propose to adopt while disposing of this Writ Petition, it would not be necessary for us to notice the factual aspects in this case.

¶14

Suffice it to record that during the hearing of this Writ

¶15

Petition with the intervention of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties which in our opinion is a fair stand to take, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the consent that the order

¶16

¶17

dated 7^th June, 2007 will not be given effect to. The directions issued for disclosure of information would stand deleted subject to the condition that Respondent No.4 shall have the right to pray for production of the very same documents in another Writ Petition being Writ Petition No.1728 of 2005. Such prayer for production of documents shall be examined by the Court while dealing with that Writ Petition. The Petitioner herein would be at liberty to take such objections as are permissible to her in accordance with law. We may also notice that the very fact that F.R.R.O. is not a party to that Writ Petition will not be of much relevance as far as the production of documents is concerned. Even that question is left open.

¶18

Consequently the Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms and we direct that Writ Petition 1728 of 2005 be listed for hearing.

¶19

A copy of this order be placed on the file of Writ Petition 1782 of 2007.

¶20

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶21

DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.

Ms Jane Cox v. Central Information Commission and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Jane Cox v. Central Information Commission and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Maharashtra Vs Shantaram Suresh Shelar and Anr.

M/S. Palghar Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Liquidator, the Swastik Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. and 3 Ors.

Milind Vithal Sagaonkar Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Shankar Dattatraya Arave -Lrs- Padmini Shankarrao Arave and Othrs Vs the State of Maharashtra

The Nab Workshop for the Blind and Anr. Vs the Municipal Corn. of Gr. Mumbai and 7 Ors.

Maharashtra Suraksha Rakshak Aghadi Vs the Security Guards Board for Greater Bombay and Thane Dist. and 2 Ors.