Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.61 seconds)Section 20 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Deepak Juneja vs Central Information Commission on 11 January, 2018
5 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in
the matter of Dr. Deepak Juneja vs Central Information Commission 29 April,
2019 in WP (C) 11489 of 2016, that clearly explained the difference between
section 18 and 19 of the RTI Act 2005.
Section 18 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs Cen.Information Commr.& Ors on 3 October, 2012
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI
Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and
existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information
which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also
not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to
obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to
`opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act,
only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority.
Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice,
guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not
be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied)
Furthermore, as regards the applicability of exemption clause of Section 8(1)(j) of
RTI Act, attention of the Complainant is invited towards a judgement of 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
9
wherein while explaining 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:
Registrar Of Companies & Ors vs Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr on 1 June, 2012
In this regard, the attention of the Complainant is
drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of
Registrar of Companies & Ors. v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C)
11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:
Milan Singh Bhagat vs State Of Chhattisgarh 39 Wps/4590/2019 ... on 26 June, 2019
Additionally, the following observation of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Bhagat
Singh v. CIC & Ors. WP(C) 3114/2007 are pertinent in this matter:
Rajesh Tiwari vs State Of Chhattisgarh 13 Wps/6051/2017 ... on 23 March, 2018
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the decision of Col. Rajendra
Singh v. Central Information Commission and Anr. WP (C) 5469 of 2008 dated
20.03.2009 had held as under:
State Of Punjab And Others vs Punjab State Information Commissioner ... on 21 April, 2022
The Commission also notes that Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No.6504 of 2009 Date of decision: 04.03.2010
(State of Punjab and others vs. State Information Commissioner, Punjab and
another); had held as under:
Centrlal Board Of Sec.Education & Anr vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors on 9 August, 2011
His attention is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on
the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya
Bandopadhyay & Ors [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as
under: