Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (2.55 seconds)

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

223. However, the point which goes against the appellant clearly is that, the information which is sought is a) voluminous b) repetitive and c) clogging the entire administrative machinery of the public authorities concerned. This cannot be allowed under the provisions of the RTI Act, the meaning of which has been amplified in a crystal clear fashion by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CBSE vs Aditya Bandopadhya as quoted above.
Supreme Court of India Cites 36 - Cited by 8906 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Shri Ketan Kantilal Modi vs Central Board Of Excise & Customs on 22 September, 2009

charge Administration, Air Headquarters, for units under their control, who may fix the fees in consultation with the Government law officer, subject to such restrictions regarding the maximum amounts payable to counsel as are laid down by the Central Governement from time to time. Claims for expenses in connection with counsel and witnesses will be accompanied by a certificate from the legal remembrance that they are reasonable. No suit by or against the Central Government, in respect of contracts relating to lands shall be filed or defended without the prior sanction of the Central Government.
Central Information Commission Cites 14 - Cited by 112 - Full Document

Maj. Gen. S. S. Dahiya, Pvsm, Vsm vs Ministry Of Defence (Mod) on 28 July, 2008

25. He also submitted a file containing the decision relied upon by him. He relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay Hasia vs Khalid Mujib, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Rajesh Kumar vs Hony Joint Secretary, AFWWA & Anr in WP(C) No-2710/1996, Commission decision in S.S Dahiya vs CPIO MoD, Subhash Chandra Agarwal vs Supreme Court of India, Lt Col R Bansal vs AWHO, B R Manhas vs JNMF, Ketan Kantilal Modi vs CBEC. Basically he was stressing on the instrumentality of state. However, the Commission finds the above reliance unsustainable. The appellant was unable to give a cogent reason for filing repeated RTI application for the same nature of queries.
Central Information Commission Cites 11 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 Next