Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.28 seconds)The Cpio, Supreme Court Of India, Tilak ... vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal & Anr. on 2 September, 2009
23. It is apparent, on the touch stone of the dicta in Central Public
Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra
Agarwal (supra), that no large public interest would be subserved by
disclosure of the information sought. The petitioner has also himself
repeatedly emphasized that the information sought is merely 'routine'
information. In such circumstances, it is untenable for the petitioner to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT W.P.(C) 12204/2025 Page 12 of 13
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:03.02.2026
18:38:28
invoke the "public interest" carve-out under Section 8(2) for the purpose of
disclosure of the said information.
Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs Cen.Information Commr.& Ors on 3 October, 2012
20. It is also noted that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Girish
Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors.,
(2013) 1 SCC 212, is squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of
the present case. In that case also, certain information was sought by way of
an RTI application from Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. The said
information was pertaining to the service career of an Enforcement Officer
in the Sub-Regional Office, Akola. In that context, the Supreme Court has
observed as under:-
Centrlal Board Of Sec.Education & Anr vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors on 9 August, 2011
19. The impugned order rightly relies upon the following observations in
Central Board of Secondary Education vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay (supra).
Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 354D in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Canara Bank vs C.S. Shyam . on 31 August, 2017
envisaged under Section 8(1 )(i) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the
context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of
Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish
Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors.,
(2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 scc
Union Of India vs Subhash Chndra Agrawal on 17 January, 2019
15. Reliance is sought to be placed by the petitioner on the observations
of the Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education vs. Aditya
Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497, as also on the decision in Central Public
Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra
Agarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 481. It is submitted that the CIC fell into grave error
in holding that the information sought constitutes personal information of
the respondent no.2, since the said information was neither shared by the
respondent no.2 in confidence nor is it in the exclusive custody of the
respondent no.2.
Jamia Millia Islamia vs Sh. Ikramuddin on 22 November, 2011
In this regard, reliance is placed on Jamia Millia Islamia vs.
Ikramuddin, 2011:DHC:5884.