Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.62 seconds)Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Canara Bank vs C.S. Shyam . on 31 August, 2017
In Canara Bank v. C.S. Shyam and Another35, the applicant had sought
information on parameters with regard to transfer of clerical staff with details of
Page 16 of 25
individual employees, such as date of their joining, promotion earned, date of their
joining the branch, the authorities who had posted the transfer letters, etc. The
information sought was declared to be personal in nature, which was conditionally
exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Section 11 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Section 10 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs Cen.Information Commr.& Ors on 3 October, 2012
In Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner and
Others34, the applicant had sought copies of all memos, show-cause notices and
censure/punishment awarded to a Government employee from his employer and also
Page 15 of 25
details of his movable/immovable properties, details of investment, loan and borrowings
from financial institutions, details of gifts accepted by the employee from his family
members and relatives at the time of the marriage of his son. In this context, it was
observed:
Shri. Onkar Dattatray Kalmankar vs Public Information Officer And ... on 4 April, 2022
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing
both parties and perusal of records, observes that as far as the denial of the information
related to other candidates in terms of their names; addresses; educational and
professional credentials; application details, marks and rank (to the exception of what
was published in the public domain at a given point in time) etc. is concerned, the reply
of the CPIO citing the exemption of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act cannot be faulted. The
reliance placed by the Appellant on the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay
in Onkar Dattatray Kalmankar vs. Public Information Officer & Others, 2024 Live
Law (Bom) 581, which was said to be affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Public
Information officer and Registrar & Anr v. Onkar Dattatray Kalmankar & Anr has
been duly considered.
The Cpio, Supreme Court Of India, Tilak ... vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal & Anr. on 2 September, 2009
11. And therefore, in the instant set of cases, the Commission relies on the Subhash
Chandra Agarwal case law to uphold the denial of the personal information of the third
parties and finds that the material on record does not ascribe larger public interest in the
disclosure of the information related to the third parties in any of the contexts discussed
at para 9 hereinabove.
Article 12 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Gujarat vs Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat & Ors on 26 October, 2005
"Redressing public injury, enforcing public duty, protecting social, collective,
'diffused' rights and interests vindicate public interest... [in the enforcement of which]
the public or a class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by
which their legal rights or liabilities are affected." Emphasis Supplied
And, in the matter of State of Gujarat vs. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kasab Jamat &
others [Appeal (Civil) 4937-4940 of 1998], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: