Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.39 seconds)Section 24 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
State(Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) vs Rajinder Prasad Sharma on 2 December, 2014
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of
the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA
No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending
consideration before the appropriate fora. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable
the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what
inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent
Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said
proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be
converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of
the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied)
The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi
High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C]
10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
Union Of India vs This Review Petition Having Come Up For ... on 26 February, 2014
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular
information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the
4
Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties
concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in
possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied)
And, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Income Tax Officer vs.
Gurpreet Kaur (W.P.[C] 2113/2019) dated 21.10.2019 has placed reliance on the
aforesaid observation of the Apex Court in Namit Sharma's case to emphasize as
under:
Centrlal Board Of Sec.Education & Anr vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors on 9 August, 2011
In this regard, his attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs.
Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held
as under:
Section 12 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Ito, New Delhi vs M/S. M & C Saatchi Communication P. Ltd., ... on 24 April, 2017
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular
information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the
4
Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties
concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in
possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied)
And, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Income Tax Officer vs.
Gurpreet Kaur (W.P.[C] 2113/2019) dated 21.10.2019 has placed reliance on the
aforesaid observation of the Apex Court in Namit Sharma's case to emphasize as
under:
Hansi Rawat & Anr. vs Punjab National Bank & Ors. on 11 January, 2013
In particular, reference may be had of a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors.
(LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 wherein it has been held as under:
1