Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.40 seconds)State Of Jharkhand And Anr. vs Navin Kumar Sinhga And Anr. on 8 August, 2007
5. The CIC held that the query No.1 stood answered as the website link
of UIDAI i.e., www.uidai.gov.in had been duly provided to the Petitioner. In
so far as query No.2 was concerned, the CIC held that the CPIO ought to
have provided the name of the external organisation handling its grievance
redressal work as per the official records. However, the CPIO denied
provision of a copy of the contract entered into by UIDAI with a private
firm to the Petitioner on the ground that the contract was subsisting. The
CIC was of the opinion that since the contract was subsisting and had not
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(C) 7865/2023 Page 5 of 13
Signing Date:05.10.2023
19:02:52
been discharged, the bar of Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act was attracted. The
CIC placed reliance on a Judgment of the Division Bench of High Court of
Jharkhand in the case of State of Jharkhand v. Navin Kumar Sinha and Anr.,
AIR 2008 Jhar 19. The CIC also observed that the Petitioner has not
specified the period for which the information was sought in his main RTI
application, therefore, it has to be presumed that the information is being
sought by the Petitioner for the current organization handling the grievance
redressal work of UIDAI. The CIC, therefore, held that since the contract
with the current external organization is subsisting and has not been
discharged, the copy of the contract cannot be provided to the Petitioner in
view of the bar of Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Section 3 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Section 8 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Section 10 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Section 23 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Section 19 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Centrlal Board Of Sec.Education & Anr vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors on 9 August, 2011
In this context a reference was
also made to the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India‟s
observations in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, 2011
(8) SCC 497 wherein it was held as under:
Section 5 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Shri Navroz Mody vs Mumbai Port Trust on 3 September, 2009
9. Reliance has been placed by the Petitioner on a decision of a Bench of
three members of Central Information Commission (CIC) dated 03.09.2009
passed in Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2009/000964 in the case of Shri Navroz
Mody vs. Mumbai Port Trust wherein the private-partnership agreement
entered into between the Mumbai Port Trust and an external agency was
directed to be disclosed.
1