Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.45 seconds)Section 20 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Section 8 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Section 11 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Section 24 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Section 18 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Centrlal Board Of Sec.Education & Anr vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors on 9 August, 2011
In the instant cases, the Commission would like to refer to the position of
Hon'ble Supreme Court as observed in the case of Central Board of
Secondary Education (CBSE) & Anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others
[(2011) 8 SCC 497] stating that:
Rajesh Tiwari vs State Of Chhattisgarh 13 Wps/6051/2017 ... on 23 March, 2018
While, the respondent CPIOs have also given replies to multiple RTI
applications of the complainant, the Commission observes that the part-
replies of the respondent CPIOs in the Complaint no. 625748, 625505 and
625516 advising the complainant to seek the information from other Public
Authority, instead of transferring the same under section 6(3) of RTI Act are
not proper. However, looking at the multiple RTI applications on similar
queries filed by the complainant in which information has been sought as
available in the records of the respondent CPIO only and the above cited
Supreme Court judgement, no mala fide denial of information or otherwise
is found on the part of CPIO in the instant case which calls for any action
under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005. In this regard, Commission relied on
a judgment of 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, wherein it was held as under:
1