Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.53 seconds)Section 12 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
The Cpio, Supreme Court Of India, Tilak ... vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal & Anr. on 2 September, 2009
Now, coming to the case wise observation, it has been observed in case File
No. CIC/DIRED/A/2023/121831, CIC/GNCTD/A/2023/140391, the Respondent
Page 25 of 30
appropriately denied the biometric attendance and other requested
information of the third party as it attracts exemption of Section 8(1)(j) of the
RTI Act. Here, attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Central Public Information
Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal
No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No.
2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under
Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios
laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in
Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central
Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of
India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794.The following was thus held:
Canara Bank vs C.S. Shyam . on 31 August, 2017
Now, coming to the case wise observation, it has been observed in case File
No. CIC/DIRED/A/2023/121831, CIC/GNCTD/A/2023/140391, the Respondent
Page 25 of 30
appropriately denied the biometric attendance and other requested
information of the third party as it attracts exemption of Section 8(1)(j) of the
RTI Act. Here, attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Central Public Information
Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal
No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No.
2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under
Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios
laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in
Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central
Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of
India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794.The following was thus held:
Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs Cen.Information Commr.& Ors on 3 October, 2012
Now, coming to the case wise observation, it has been observed in case File
No. CIC/DIRED/A/2023/121831, CIC/GNCTD/A/2023/140391, the Respondent
Page 25 of 30
appropriately denied the biometric attendance and other requested
information of the third party as it attracts exemption of Section 8(1)(j) of the
RTI Act. Here, attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Central Public Information
Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal
No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No.
2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under
Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios
laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in
Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central
Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of
India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794.The following was thus held:
Dr R S Gupta vs Govt. Of Nctd And Others on 31 August, 2020
Further, with regards to the information sought by the Appellant regarding the
biometric attendance records, the Commission finds it pertinent to quote the
judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the decision of Dr. R S Gupta vs.
Govt. of NCTD & Ors. in LPA 207/2020 dated 31.08.2020, wherein the Hon'ble
Court held as under:
1