Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.28 seconds)
Tapan Kumar Pradhan vs Reserve Bank Of India on 7 April, 2025 cites

State(Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) vs Rajinder Prasad Sharma on 2 December, 2014

"6. ....proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied) Page 23 of 30 The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 774 - Full Document

Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint ... vs The Goa State Information Commission ... on 3 April, 2008

"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...." (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:
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 2001 - S A Bobde - Full Document

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

13. The Appellant is thus advised by the Commission to exercise his right to information judiciously, 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:
Supreme Court of India Cites 36 - Cited by 8906 - R V Raveendran - Full Document
1   2 Next