Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.21 seconds)Section 12 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Section 10 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 regard, the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhya dated 09.08.2011 are particularly relevant
in this regard, wherein it has been categorically mentioned that the
nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public
authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing
information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties.
This principle is squarely applicable to the instant case.
In this particular matter, it is informed that the matter was referred to
Dean (Admissions), Head (Department of Statistics), Assistant Registrar
(Academic) and Statitical Officer (Planning Unit), the concerned deemed
PIOs as per section 5(4) & 5(5) of the Act. point wise information is as
follows:
Hansi Rawat & Anr. vs Punjab National Bank & Ors. on 11 January, 2013
21. As far as jurisdiction of Commission is concerned,areference may be had
of a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter ofHansi Rawat
and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated
11.01.2013wherein it has been held as under:
State(Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) vs Rajinder Prasad Sharma on 2 December, 2014
22. The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the
Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter ofGovt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender
Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017wherein it was held as under:
Union Of India vs This Review Petition Having Come Up For ... on 26 February, 2014
23. While, the Apex Court in the matter ofUnion of India vs Namit Sharma
(Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013observed as under:
1