Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.21 seconds)Hansi Rawat & Anr. vs Punjab National Bank & Ors. on 11 January, 2013
"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)
As far as jurisdiction of Commission is concerned, a reference may be had of a
judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and
Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013
wherein it has been held as under:
State(Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) vs Rajinder Prasad Sharma on 2 December, 2014
The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi
High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C]
10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
Union Of India vs This Review Petition Having Come Up For ... on 26 February, 2014
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review
Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
Section 12 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
1