Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
The writ petition stands dismissed
Provisions considered
Judgment
Ms. Piyali Sengupta, Mr. Victor Chatterjee, Mr. Biswajit Paral. …For the Petitioner. Ms. Jhuma Chakraborty, Mr. Suddhadev Adak. …For the State. Mr. Raja Saha, Ms. B. Roy. …For the Respondent No.2.
The petitioner claims to have appeared in a recruitment process for appointment as teacher under the South 24 Parganas District Primary School Council in the year 2003. He claims to be a physically disabled candidate and he appeared for interview on 27th December, 2003. In August 2022, the petitioner applied for obtaining information with regard to the fate of the recruitment process under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
The petitioner aggrieved by information provided to him under the Right to Information Act.
It appears that the subject examination took place more than 22 years back. At such a delayed point of time, the Court is not inclined to pass any order upon any authority to provide any information to the petitioner. 2
The writ petition appears to be hopelessly time barred.
Operative part
The writ petition stands dismissed.
The information by the Law Officer & Joint Registrar, West Bengal Information Commission signed on 9th December, 2024 is taken on record.
Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities. ( Amrita Sinha, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The writ petition stands dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Right to Information Act, 2005.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.