Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.40 seconds)Section 18 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Section 19 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
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:
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:
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
It appears that the Complainant has been repeatedly seeking
information on similar subject matters, thus using up the time and
resources of the Public Authority disproportionately. Such repetitive
litigation is counter-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
Section 147 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Biplab Kumar Chowdhury vs The State Of West Bengal on 4 August, 2017
In this
regard, the Commission invites attention of the parties towards a
judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Kolkata in a case titled
Biplab Kumar Chowdhury v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
WPA 3116 of 2022 wherein it was held as under -
1