Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.30 seconds)Nirmala Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh 40 Wps/432/2017 ... on 18 May, 2018
We would also refer Central
information Commission Decision passed in "Satish Tiwari v I.O.C.L" wherein Hon'ble
CIC held that it is indeed very unfortunate that a large number of persons who
themselves are not so clean in so far as their conduct and behavior, including economic
integrity is concerned and it is they who have been misusing the provisions of the RTI Act
for promotion of personal interest at the heavy cost of public expenditure which are
incurred in processing the RTI applications."
Centrlal Board Of Sec.Education & Anr vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors on 9 August, 2011
"It is observed that you have been constantly filling in applications one after
another and always seeking a similar kind of information which we had already rejected
vide our various replies and in our opinion, it is a sheer misuse of RTI Act, 2005. ln this
regard, we would like to refer the Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in "Central
Board of Secondary Education & Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Anr wherein Hon'ble
Supreme Court has rightly held that indiscriminate and impractical demands or
directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to
transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication
of corruption) would be counter -productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of
the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-
productive work of collecting and furnishing information.
Section 4 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Petitioner No. 6 For Placing On Record ... vs Union Of India And Ors on 14 December, 2020
Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC
The Cpio, Supreme Court Of India, Tilak ... vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal & Anr. on 2 September, 2009
In this regard, the attention of the Appellant is drawn
towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public
Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil
Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No.
2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section
8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the
same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of
2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner &
Canara Bank vs C.S. Shyam . on 31 August, 2017
In this regard, the attention of the Appellant is drawn
towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public
Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil
Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No.
2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section
8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the
same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of
2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner &
Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs Cen.Information Commr.& Ors on 3 October, 2012
In this regard, the attention of the Appellant is drawn
towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public
Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil
Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No.
2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section
8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the
same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of
2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner &
The Minimum Wages Act, 1948
1