Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.26 seconds)Section 3 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Ltd., K.L. ... vs Union Of India (Uoi), The Collector Of ... on 20 December, 2002
Shri Vinod Sunder R. as Company Secretary of M/s
Devas Multimedia Pvt. Ltd. is the information seeker in this case. We asked Advocate
Rewari to cite any law or judgment of superior judiciary that would bar the Commission
from taking into consideration the above plea made by the Respondents in their written
submissions dated 22.1.2016. He did not cite any such law or judgment of superior
judiciary. Advocate Rewari referred to the Commission's decision No. 908/ICPB/2007
dated 17.9.2007 in Mr. R. K. Morarka vs. Central Bank of India, in which the Commission
made the following observations:
"Even though in terms of RTI Act, only a citizen has the right to seek information
from a public authority, this Commission has taken a view that directors of
companies, partners of firms and office bearers of associations of persons could
also seek information on behalf of the companies, firms and associations
respectively. Therefore, the CPIO/the AA could not have rejected the application on
the sole ground that a company is not a citizen. This Commission has consistently
taken a view that if the information sought relates to a pending proceeding before a
competent court/tribunal, then the said information should be obtained only through
court/tribunal and not under the provisions of the RTI Act. In the present case, since
I find that practically all the information sought relate to the pending proceeding
before the DRT, the appellant cannot seek the information under the RTI Act.
Accordingly, the application is dismissed."
Income-Tax Bar Association And Anr. vs Chief Commissioner Of Income-Tax And ... on 18 October, 1989
In this context, the
CIC/SH/A/2014/002787
following observations made by the Commission in two of its orders are germane to the
matter before us. In the decision dated 3.3.2008 in The Secretary The Cuttack Tax Bar
Association vs. The Commissioner of Income TaxVII, a three member bench of the
Commission made the following observations:
"In the present case, the appellants have come as a distinct legal entity. From the
records it appears that the application under the Right to Information Act was
submitted on 6th September, 2006 in the name of the Association. The application
was signed by the Secretary, Shri Goliath Pasha whose name as an individual can be
ascertained only from the Letter Head of the Association and his signature perse
does not signify identity of the signatory. The first appeal has also been filed, not in
the name of any individual citizen, but by the Secretary, Cuttack Bar Association and
it has been signed by Shri Natbar Panda who seems to have subsequently taken over
as Secretary of the Association. Similarly, the 2nd appeal before this Commission has
not been filed in the name of any individual citizen but by the Secretary of the Cuttack
Bar Association and it has been signed by Shri Natbar Panda as Secretary for and on
behalf of the Association. From this, it is clear that the signatories to the application
and the appeal under the R.T.I. Act are two distinct individuals. It, therefore, leaves no
doubt that it is the Association which is the applicant and the appellant as a distinct
legal entity and the Association or its Secretary in its official designation cannot be
treated as "citizen" under the law."
Disclaimer: The Orders/Decisions ... vs Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson ... on 12 November, 2013
2. Shri Saurabh Jain vs. Power Finance Corporation Ltd., another three member bench of
the Commission made the following observations:
"We are not inclined to accept the submission made by the counsel for the
Respondent. It is true that appellant has sought the impugned information on behalf
of M/s. Ernst & young and has regularly appeared before the Commission to canvass
his case. The fact, however, remains that appellant is a citizen of India and this
proposition has not been challenged on behalf of PFCL. Even if the appellant is
seeking this information on behalf of M/s Ernst & Young, he is doing so as a citizen of
India u/s 3 of the Act. The Commission, therefore, is not inclined to take a hyper
technical view in the matter. In view of the precedent cited by the counsel for the
appellant adverted to herein above and also by taking a pragmatic view in the matter,
we hold that the appellant is well within his rights u/s 3 to seek the impugned
information."
1