Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.28 seconds)Section 4 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Vivek Mittal vs B.P.Srivastava & Others on 24 August, 2009
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Vivek Mittal v. B.P. Srivastava,
W.P.(C) 19122/2006 dated 24.08.2009 had upheld the view of the CIC and observed that
".....The Act as framed, castes obligation upon the CPIOs and fixes responsibility in case
there is failure or delay in supply of information. It is the duty of the CPIOs to ensure that
the provisions of the Act are fully complied with and in case of default, necessary
consequences follow".
Mujibur Rehman vs Central Information Commission on 28 April, 2009
Having heard both the parties and on perusal of the available records, the Commission at the outset
observed that the RTI application shuffled from one department to another and was not responded
timely. Moreover, as submitted by the Respondent CC-3, DDA, the RTI application/ First Appeal
was transferred to the Dy. Director (LM), EZ vide letters dated 24.08.2018/ 15.10.2018. The
Respondent (LM) also admitted during the hearing that the instant matter pertained to their
jurisdiction and that a time bound response was not provided to the Appellant. The Commission
observed that the RTI Act, 2005 stipulates time limits in its various provisions relating to responding
to RTI Applications, transfer of applications, filing and disposing of first appeal to ensure that a
culture of information dissemination is strengthened so that a robust functioning of the democracy
gets established. This was recognised by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Mujibur Rehman vs
Central Information Commission (W.P. (C) 3845/2007)(Dated 28 April, 2009) wherein it was held as
under:
Chandravadan Rangildas Dhru vs State Of Gujarat & 1....Opponent(S) on 22 February, 2017
The Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the matter of Chandravadan Dhruv vs. State of Gujarat and
Ors, Special Civil Application No. 2398 of 2013 dated 21.12.2013 held as under:
Union Of India vs Vishwas Bhamburkar on 13 September, 2013
In this
Page 3 of 6
context, a reference was made to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the matter of
Union of India v. Vishwas Bhamburkar, W.P.(C) 3660/2012 dated 13.09.2013 wherein the Court had
in a matter where inquiry was ordered by the Commission observed as under:
M/S S.J. And S.P. Family Trust vs Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest ... on 18 May, 2018
Furthermore, the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and various judgments on the subject matter clearly
establishes that it is the duty of the CPIO to provide clear, cogent and precise response to the
information seekers. Section 7 (8) (i) of the RTI Act, 2005 also states that where a request for
disclosure of information is rejected, the CPIO shall communicate the reasons for such rejection. The
Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of J P Aggarwal v. Union of India (WP (C) no. 7232/2009
clearly stated that the PIO acts as the Pivot for enforcing the implementation of the Act. The relevant
extracts of the decision are as under:
1