Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.23 seconds)
Prashant Vilas Dhasal vs Office Of The Registrar General Of India on 18 January, 2024 cites

Centrlal Board Of Sec.Education & Anr vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors on 9 August, 2011

23. It even otherwise belies logic as to why Sections 5 to 7 providing for appointment of CPIOs, making of request for information and providing of information or rejection of request for information should be read as applicable also to the information which has already suo motu been made available by the public authority to the public at large and as to why the CPIOs should be required to, in response to a request under Section 6, again provide information which the public authority has suo motu made available on internet. Any other meaning or interpretation ascribed to the said provisions would render infructuous the obligation discharged by the public authority of suo motu making information available on internet. The Legislature, while enacting Section 4, obliging the public authority to suo motu make all information available, was fully aware of the high cost entailed in so making the information made available. Section 4(1)(a), while providing for computerisation by public authorities of all records, makes the same subject to availability of resources. To hold, that notwithstanding the public authority, at a huge expense, having suo motu made information available to the public at large, is also to be burdened with dealing with request for the same information, would amount to a huge waste of resources of the public authorities. Experience of operation of the Act for the last nearly ten years has shown that the officers of the public authorities designated as CPIOs have other duties also and the duty to be discharged by them as CPIO is an additional duty. It cannot also be ignored that dealing with request for information is a time consuming process. If it were to be held that information already made available under Section 4 will have to be again provided under Sections 6 & 7, it will on the one hand not advance the legislative intent in any way and on the other hand may allow misuse of the provisions of the Act for extraneous reasons and allowing harassment of CPIOs by miscreants Commission deems it expedient to highlight that Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors, SLP(C) NO. 7526/2009 has held that :
Supreme Court of India Cites 36 - Cited by 8906 - R V Raveendran - Full Document
1