Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.33 seconds)Section 20 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Mujibur Rehman vs Central Information Commission on 28 April, 2009
9. This Court in Mujibur Rehman Vs. Central Information Commission
MANU/DE/0542/2009 held that information seekers are to be furnished what they ask for
and are not to be driven away through filibustering tactics and it is to ensure a culture of
information disclosure that penalty provisions have been provided in the RTI Act. The Act
has conferred the duty to ensure compliance on the PIO.
M/S S.J. And S.P. Family Trust vs Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest ... on 18 May, 2018
Moreover, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the decision J P Aggarwal v. Union of India (WP (C)
no. 7232/2009 while stating that the CPIO should not mechanically forward the information
collected through subordinates, held as under that:
Vivek Mittal vs B.P.Srivastava & Others on 24 August, 2009
This Court in Vivek Mittal Vs.
B.P. Srivastava MANU/DE/4315/2009 held that a PIO cannot escape his obligations and
duties by stating that persons appointed under him had failed to collect documents and
information; that the Act as framed casts obligation upon the PIO to ensure that the
provisions of the Act are fully complied. Even otherwise, the settled position in law is
that an officer entrusted with the duty is not to act mechanically.
J.P. Agrawal vs Union Of India & Ors. on 4 August, 2011
A reference was drawn to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of J.P
Agrawal v. Union of India-2013(287) ELT25(Del.) wherein it was held as under:
Centrlal Board Of Sec.Education & Anr vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors on 9 August, 2011
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC
497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), wherein it was held as under:
1