Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.28 seconds)The Official Secrets Act, 1923
British Nationality Act, 1964
Section 11 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Section 19 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Section 28 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Poorna Prajna Public School vs Central Information Commission & ... on 25 September, 2009
It needs no gainsaying that none of this will apply in the present case,
for nothing in the present application can even by a stretch of the imagination,
be construed as "any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the
State". Subsequent to the hearing Shri Roy has submitted a further e-mail of
Sunday, September 5, 2010, 10:15 am in which he has contended that
"application of Order XII of the Supreme Court Rules 1966 to access
2
Defined in Sec 2(8) of the Act
9
information under RTI process is flawed and "per incuram" since the
Commission failed to consider that Rules u/s 28 of RTI must be "prescribed"
(as defined in section 2 of RTI Act) by a formal notification in the official
gazette by the competent authorities." This issue is dealt with in detail in the
Decision Notice. Moreover Er Roy has sought to raise the issue of third party
in the context of the ruling of the High Court of Delhi in decision in
WP(C) 7265/2007 "Poorna Prajna School versus Central Information
Commission and Ors" d/d 25.Sep.2009, in which Hon'ble Sanjeev Khanna J
in upholding the decision of this Commission in light of Sec 2(f) of the Act, has
not ruled on Sec 2(n), as argued by Er Roy, which Sub-Section merely
extends to public authorities, which Er Roy does not represent, the definition
of third party .
1