Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.33 seconds)Section 18 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Section 8 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Section 221 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Rajesh Tiwari vs State Of Chhattisgarh 13 Wps/6051/2017 ... on 23 March, 2018
Emphasis supplied
Furthermore, the 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:
Ashok Kumar Pandey vs The State Of West Bengal on 18 November, 2003
productive to the RTI regime, and this aspect has been discussed by the
Apex Court in detail in the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. The State of
West Bengal, (AIR 2003 SC 280 Para 11), where J. Pasayat had held:
Shail Sahni vs Sanjeev Kumar And Ors. on 5 February, 2014
Emphasis supplied
The Hon'ble Delhi High Court while deciding the case of Shail Sahni vs. Sanjeev
Kumar & Ors. [W.P. (C) 845/2014] has also made similar observations:
Centrlal Board Of Sec.Education & Anr vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors on 9 August, 2011
Emphasis supplied
In the other landmark judgement in the case of Central Board of Secondary
Education & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors., the Apex Court held as
follows:
Mrs. Pushpa & Ors vs Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital on 24 November, 2008
I. As held in the case of Pushpa vs. Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, complaint no.
CIC/PB/C/2008/00304, 00310, 00866 and 00868 decided on 24.11.2008, this
Act as an instrument, cannot be used either to harass or to obstruct the
II. In the case of Ramesh Chandra vs. Ashok Kumar Shukla, appeal no.
CIC/OK/A/2008/01135 decided on 28.01.2009, the CIC categorically laid down
that an information cannot be given if it is sought with a view to public
authority.