Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.41 seconds)
Smt. Binni Dwivedi vs United Commercial Bank (Uco) on 23 August, 2024 cites

Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer & Ors on 4 January, 2010

"35. 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.........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." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 981 - Full Document

Centrlal Board Of Sec.Education & Anr vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors on 9 August, 2011

Now since the Commission observes that the instant set of cases are a mere extension of the averred earlier cases, the Appellant is reminded of the fact that her right to information is far from being absolute and unconditional. That, it is rather unfortunate that even the best of intentions must not only stand the test of procedural requirements and Page 35 of 42 fetters laid down in the RTI Act but also stand the test of practicality, a notion well recognised by the superior Courts in a catena of judgments such as the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in the matter of Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & Anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] stating that:
Supreme Court of India Cites 36 - Cited by 8906 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Ramesh Chand Jain vs Delhi Transport Corporation on 30 December, 2019

In Central Information Commission's decision dated 25.06.2014 in case No. CIC/AD/A/2013/001326-SA in Shri Ramesh Chand Jain vs Delhi Transport Corporation it was observed that "Appellant seeks some information from one wing of public authority and based on responses, file a bunch of RTI questions from same or other wing of public authority or from other authority. This will have a continuous harassing effect on the public authority. As the PIO go on answering, more and more questions are generated out of same and in same proportion the number of repeated first appeals will be growing."
Central Information Commission Cites 4 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1