Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.28 seconds)Section 6 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Centrlal Board Of Sec.Education & Anr vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors on 9 August, 2011
Here, the attention of the Appellant is also 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:
Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer & Ors on 4 January, 2010
Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice,
guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not
be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied)
Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer & Ors
[SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint ... vs The Goa State Information Commission ... on 3 April, 2008
"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is
not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law.
Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information
which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time
being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not
5
have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information
and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken
such a decision in the matter which was before him...." (Emphasis Supplied)
And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education)
vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble
Bombay High Court held as under:
1