Search Results Page

Search Results

11 - 20 of 26 (0.31 seconds)
Documents citing Amit Meharia vs Commissioner Of Police & Ors. on 17 August, 2021

Monalisa Das vs Food Corporation Of India on 16 March, 2022

Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that Shri Pushpendra Singh has expressed his dissent from disclosing the averred information to the Appellant vide letter dated 25.03.2020. Be that as it may, the Commission finds it pertinent to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide W.P.(C) 2211/2021 & CM APPL.16337/2021 in the matter of Amit Meharia versus Commissioner of Police & Ors. decided on 17.08.2021, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has categorically held as under:
Central Information Commission Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Avishek Palit vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 18 April, 2022

Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that the instant matter is a complaint filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act. Hence, the only adjudication required to be made by the Commission is to determine if the information has been denied with a mala fide intention or unreasonable cause to the information seeker. Since the Respondent has provided adequate reply qua the instant RTI Application as the Complainant is seeking personal information of a third party. The Commission finds it pertinent to rely upon the recent judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide W.P.(C) 2211/2021 & CM APPL.16337/2021 in the matter of Amit Page 3 of 6 CIC/EPFOG/C/2020/136509 Meharia versus Commissioner of Police & Ors. decided on 17.08.2021, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has categorically held as under:
Central Information Commission Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sangeeta Chandrakant Shivalkar vs Mumbai Port Trust on 2 September, 2021

Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that the information sought in the instant RTI Application pertains to personal information of a third party, which has been appropriately denied by the Respondent under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. However, since the Appellant is contesting the same, the Commission finds it pertinent to rely upon the recent judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide W.P.(C) 2211/2021 & CM APPL.16337/2021 in the matter of Amit Meharia Page 3 of 6 CIC/MPTRS/A/2019/141793 versus Commissioner of Police & Ors. decided on 17.08.2021, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has categorically held as under:
Central Information Commission Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ch Satish Chandra vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 9 May, 2022

Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that the information sought in the instant RTI Application pertains to personal information of a third party. The Commission finds it pertinent to rely upon the recent judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide W.P.(C) 2211/2021 & CM APPL.16337/2021 in the matter of Amit Meharia versus Commissioner of Police & Ors. decided on 17.08.2021, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has categorically held as under:
Central Information Commission Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vijayakumar Maled vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 9 May, 2022

Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that the information sought in the instant RTI Application pertains to personal information of a third party, which has been appropriately denied by the Respondent under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. However, since the Appellant is contesting the same, the Commission finds it pertinent to rely upon the recent judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide W.P.(C) 2211/2021 & CM APPL.16337/2021 in the matter of Amit Meharia versus Commissioner of Police & Ors. decided on 17.08.2021, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has categorically held as under:
Central Information Commission Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Upasna Kapoor vs Edcil (India) Limited on 17 June, 2022

Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that the information sought in the instant RTI Application pertains to personal information of a third party who has expressed his dissent to share his personal information to the Appellant and accordingly the Respondent has rightly denied the information under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act. However, since the Appellant is contesting the same, the Commission finds it pertinent to rely upon the recent judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide W.P.(C) 2211/2021 & CM APPL.16337/2021 in the matter of Amit Meharia versus Commissioner of Police & Ors. decided on 17.08.2021, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has categorically held as under: "16. A perusal of all these FIRs and complaints therein would show that allegations have been made by the Respondent No. 4 against both her ex-husbands as also the in-laws etc. Thus, the privacy which is to be considered in this case is not just the privacy of Respondent No.4 alone, but in fact, that of the said husbands against whom complaints were filed as well as the in-laws etc. The personal information in this case does not relate only to the Petitioner or Respondent No.4 but also to those other persons who were the subject matter of the said complaints and FIR. Thus, the exception under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 would clearly apply in the present case.
Central Information Commission Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dr Praveen Kumar Jhamb vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 18 July, 2022

Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that the Respondent has rightly denied the information after invocation of Section 11 of the RTI Act, since the third party has expressed her dissent from divulging her personal information to any third party vide her dissent letter dated 18.02.2021. Furthermore, the issue involved herein remains no more res integra and stands settled by the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide W.P.(C) 2211/2021 & CM APPL.16337/2021 in the matter of Amit Meharia versus Commissioner of Police & Ors. decided on 17.08.2021, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has categorically held as under:
Central Information Commission Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shahensha Shaik vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 5 August, 2022

Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that the information sought in Page 5 of 8 CIC/EPFOG/A/2021/119369 the instant RTI Application pertains to personal information of a third party, which has been appropriately denied by the Respondent under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Further, the Commission finds it pertinent to rely upon the recent judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide W.P.(C) 2211/2021 & CM APPL.16337/2021 in the matter of Amit Meharia versus Commissioner of Police & Ors. decided on 17.08.2021, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has categorically held as under:
Central Information Commission Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sanju Gupta vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 14 November, 2022

Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that the information sought in the instant RTI Application pertains to personal information of a third party, which has been appropriately denied by the Respondent under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Further, the Commission finds it pertinent to rely upon the recent judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide W.P.(C) 2211/2021 & CM APPL.16337/2021 in the matter of Amit Meharia versus Commissioner of Police & Ors. decided on 17.08.2021, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has categorically held as under:
Central Information Commission Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mohit Kumar Gupta vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 25 November, 2022

(j) of the RTI Act. However, since the Appellant is contesting the same, the Commission finds it pertinent to rely upon the recent judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide W.P.(C) 2211/2021 & CM APPL.16337/2021 in the matter of Amit Meharia versus Commissioner of Police & Ors. decided on 17.08.2021, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has categorically held as under:
Central Information Commission Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
Previous   1 2   3 Next