Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 56 (1.76 seconds)Section 8 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Section 24 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Section 7 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
B S Mathur vs Public Information Officer Of Delhi ... on 3 June, 2011
“9. It is apparent from a bare perusal of the CIC's order
that it does not indicate the reasons that persuaded the CIC to
uphold the viewof the Public Authority that the disclosure of
information sought by the petitioner would impede prosecution of
the petitioner. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of B.S.
Mathur v. Public Information Officer of Delhi High
Court:W.P.(C)295/2011,decidedon03.06.2011 had considered the
contention with regard to with holding information under Section
8(1)(h) of the Act and held as under:
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Article 19 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Bhagat Singh vs Chief Information Commissioner And ... on 3 December, 2007
13.2 It also be noted that the learned Single Judge?s
view in Bhagat Singh case has been upheld by a reasoned order
by the Division Bench in Directorate of Income Tax and Anr. Vs.
Bhagat Singh, dated 17.12.2007 passed in LPA 1377/2007.”
Director Of Income Tax (Investigation) ... vs Bhagat Singh And Anr. on 17 December, 2007
13.2 It also be noted that the learned Single Judge?s
view in Bhagat Singh case has been upheld by a reasoned order
by the Division Bench in Directorate of Income Tax and Anr. Vs.
Bhagat Singh, dated 17.12.2007 passed in LPA 1377/2007.”
P.Pugalenthi vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 26 March, 2012
16. The validity of the said Government Order was questioned
before this Court in P. Pugalenthi v. State of T.N. represented by
the Secretary to Government, Personnel and Administrative
Reforms (N) Department, Chennai and others, W.P. No. 4907 of
2009 and the same has been upheld by order dated 30.3.2009. The
contention of the learned Special Government Pleader is that in
view of the above, the Chief Information Commissioner should not
have directed the furnishing of information required by each of
the first respondent in the appeals and consequently the learned
Judge should not have dismissed the writ petitions filed by the
54/108
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.37231 of 2016
department. In our opinion, the said contention is totally
unacceptable. Even in the said judgment, the Division Bench has
categorically held that in the event the information required by an
applicant relates to the allegations of corruption, the said
Government Order cannot be made applicable and accordingly
the department cannot claim the exemption from furnishing those
particulars relating to corruption. The learned Judge has
correctly applied the above judgment with reference to the
particulars required by each of the first respondent in these
appeals, as they relate only to corruption.