Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.44 seconds)Shri C.P. Rai vs Delhi Transport Corporation (Dtc) on 10 July, 2008
The Hon'ble Commission in its order No. CIC/AD/A/2013/001326-SA delivered on
25-6-2014 in the case of R.C.Jain Vs. DTC, with respect to RTI applications which are
repetitive and harassing in nature had observed that repetitive use of RTI is an ABUSE of
RTI Act.
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
43. Adverting to the foregoing observations, the Appellant is reminded of the fact that
his right to information is far from being absolute and unconditional. That, it is rather
unfortunate that even the best of intentions has to not only stand the test of procedural
requirements and fetters laid down in the RTI Act but also stand the test of practicality, a
notion well recognised by the superior Courts in a catena of judgments such as the Hon'ble
Supreme Court's observation in the matter of Central Board of Secondary Education
(CBSE) & Anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] stating that:
Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer & Ors on 4 January, 2010
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI
Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A
public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of
inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or
`opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice'
to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information'
Page 90 of 97
in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the
public authority. 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], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint ... vs The Goa State Information Commission ... on 3 April, 2008
(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