Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.23 seconds)Centrlal Board Of Sec.Education & Anr vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors on 9 August, 2011
12.".. Here, 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 must 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:
Shail Sahni vs Sanjeev Kumar And Ors. on 5 February, 2014
Moreover, the petitioner who is wanting transparency by seeking
information going back to two decades, ought not to have any
grievance with her conduct being put up on the official website of
the Department of Education and which disclosure is of nothing but
of the number of RTI applications filed by the petitioner and the
order of the CIC thereon. The petitioner cannot be heard to
Page 5 of 14
complain of what she herself has caused to others" Delhi High
Court 05.02.2014 (WPC 845/2014) in the matter "Shail Sahni versus
Sanjeev Kumar and others"
Shail Sahni vs Smt Valsa Sara Mathew & Ors on 19 January, 2016
Delhi High Court 19.01.2016 (WPC 406/2016) in the matter "Shail
Sahni versus Smt Valsa Sara Mathew and others"
Ramesh Chand Jain vs Delhi Transport Corporation on 30 December, 2019
CIC-verdict dated 25.06.2014 (CIC/AD/A/2013/001326-SA in the
matter Mr Ramesh Chand Jain versus Delhi Transport Corporation
"Even a single repetition of RTI application would demand the
valuable time of the public-authority, first appellate authority and
if it reaches second appeal, that of the Commission, which time
could have been spent to hear another appeal or answer another
application or perform other public duty. Every repetition of RTI
application which was earlier responded will be an obstruction to
flow of information and defeats the purpose of the RTI Act."
1