PDA

View Full Version : Downloads


  1. Public Trust Balance sheet from Income Tax dept- High Court of Gujarat
  2. The Board of Management of Properties of IISc is a Public Authority
  3. Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee in Maharashtra is a public authority
  4. Census data including religion details cannot be disclosed under RTI
  5. Constitution Bench of SC to decide whether to disclose information on appointment of judges under RTI
  6. Information regrading ones own criminal case cannot be denied under RTI
  7. SIC is not a "Court" but has powers of a civil court only for the specific conditions under Sec 18(3)
  8. DMRC (Metro Rail) cannot deny the design of pillar under Sec 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act
  9. Penalty on PIO reduced becuase there was no malafide denial of information
  10. Departmental enquiry against FAA not allowed under RTI Act
  11. SIC incorrectly imposed penalty and recommended disciplinary action
  12. Government employees can use RTI Act to seek status on representations made by them
  13. Bihar SIC correctly imposed penalty on PIO
  14. IFCI is a Public Authority under the RTI Act 2005
  15. Answer Scripts have to be disclosed under RTI
  16. Madras HC: Answer scripts to be disclosed under RTI
  17. No need to give reasons for seeking information
  18. PIO has to provide information even if application was filed through the SIC
  19. Applicant cannot approach the Court without exhausting remedies available under Sec 19
  20. Information regarding disciplinary proceedings cannot be denied under Sec 8(1)(e), (g) or (j)
  21. CIC correctly awarded compensation
  22. Departmental enquiry against FAA not allowed under RTI Act
  23. Penalty on PIO reduced becuase there was no malafide denial of information
  24. DMRC (Metro Rail) cannot deny the design of pillar under Sec 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act
  25. SIC is not a "Court" but has powers of a civil court only for the specific conditions under Sec 18(3)
  26. Information regrading ones own criminal case cannot be denied under RTI
  27. Census data including religion details cannot be disclosed under RTI
  28. Constitution Bench of SC to decide whether to disclose information on appointment of judges under RTI
  29. Census data including religion details cannot be disclosed under RTI
  30. Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee in Maharashtra is a public authority
  31. SIC incorrectly imposed penalty and recommended disciplinary action
  32. CIC correctly awarded compensation
  33. Applicant cannot approach the Court without exhausting remedies available under Sec 19
  34. Information regarding disciplinary proceedings cannot be denied under Sec 8(1)(e), (g) or (j)
  35. The Board of Management of Properties of IISc is a Public Authority
  36. PIO has to provide information even if application was filed through the SIC
  37. No need to give reasons for seeking information
  38. Madras HC: Answer scripts to be disclosed under RTI
  39. Answer Scripts have to be disclosed under RTI
  40. Government employees can use RTI Act to seek status on representations made by them
  41. Bihar SIC correctly imposed penalty on PIO
  42. IFCI is a Public Authority under the RTI Act 2005
  43. SIC should dispose off second appeal in 45 days
  44. Penalty not on PIO but the Public Authority since responsibility cannot be fixed
  45. SIC has enough powers to seek compliance of its orders
  46. Penalty not on PIO but the Public Authority since responsibility cannot be fixed
  47. Third Party procedure to be adopted for providing copies even if inspection has already been done
  48. RTI Act is applicable to central PAs located in or having offices/units in J&K
  49. Indian Institute of Banking and Finance is not a PA
  50. Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee is a PA and Penalty reduced
  51. Individuals marks, last selected candidates marks and ACR entries cannot be denied under Sec 8(1)(e) and (j)
  52. Only PIO can be penalised under Sec 20
  53. Jet Airways is not a PA and DGCA cannot collect requested info from Jet
  54. SIC correctly imposed penalty for delay and PIO responsible for his subordinates actions
  55. CIC has to consult third party before passing orders
  56. CIC has no powers to frame Management Regulations and overstepped its powers
  57. NAFED, NCCF and KRIBHCO are PAs under Sec 2(h)(d)(i)
  58. FAA and CIC/SIC must give an oportunity to third party for a hearing - Sec 19(4)
  59. Only PIO can be penalised under Sec 20(1)
  60. Only PIO can be pebalised under Sec 20(1)
  61. Indian Railway Welfare Organisation (IRWO) is a PA under the RTI Act
  62. Tirupur Area Development Corportaion is a Public Authority
  63. NSE is a Public Authority under the RTI Act
  64. No reasons need be given for seeking information and answer sheets
  65. CIC needs to follow third party procedure and take Sec 24 into account
  66. No penalty of there is a reasonable cause for delay
  67. Selection criteria and various marks to be disclosed
  68. SIC has to follow the Appeal Procedure Rules
  69. There was no malafide denial by PIO
  70. There was no malafide denial by PIO
  71. Details of Complaints, FIR's, Warrants, to be disclosed
  72. DAV School is a PA as was decided by a single judge bench
  73. WBSIC should rehear the Tata Motors Singur Agreement matter
  74. In the era governed by RTI Act, information cannot be denied
  75. Relevant section to be mentioned if compensation is awarded by CIC
  76. Court cannot order a sub committee to assist the committee to select CIC and ICs
  77. Sec 12(5) 12(6) 15(5) and 15(6) are not unconstitutional
  78. Delhi HC Judgment disposing of a batch of 8 WP's
  79. Delhi HC Full bench judgment on declaration of assets by judges
  80. Delhi HC Judgment on declaring OCCG, IOA and Sanskriti School as Public Authorities
  81. RTI cannot be used for seeking reasons for judgments
  82. Penalty and Disciplinary action only after PIO is heard
  83. Administrative difficulties cannot be cited to deny information
  84. Counsel need not reveal opinion given to Government
  85. SIC correctly imposed penalty since information provided was incorrect and misleading
  86. SIC correctly imposed penalty since information provided was incorrect and misleading
  87. Charges specified by PIO were correct but in view of larger perspective applicant should be allowed inspection
  88. Information regarding appointments cannot be withheld since there are no adverse cour judgments
  89. Sec 8(1)(j) is not applicable if information is largely already in the public domain
  90. SIC has enough powers to seek compliance of its orders
  91. SIC has enough powers to seek compliance of its orders
  92. Residential address of Government Pensioner can be disclosed under RTI
  93. EVM data cannot be disclosed under RTI
  94. File Notings in disciplinary matters cannot be disclosed under RTI
  95. Court cannot prescribe transparent procedure in appointment of CIC
  96. State CIC is administratively higher but first amongst equals on the judicial side
  97. Court asks SIC to dispose of complaints against non compliance within 3 weeks
  98. Kerala SIC correctly imposed penalty on PIO
  99. SIC correctly imposed penalty for providing incorrect information beyond the time limits
  100. CIC order should be a reasoned order
  101. DEO can access information from a private school
  102. No grounds for denial under Sec 8(1)(a)
  103. Copies of OMR Sheets and marks of other candidates to be disclosed
  104. Personal information of public servants cannot be always disclosed
  105. Court cannot intervene if SIC is not functioning properly
  106. SIC cannot impose Penalty without hearing the PIO
  107. Quantum of reward paid to a customs officer to be disclosed
  108. NCDRC says that non provision of information is a defficiency in service
  109. SIC correctly imposed Penalty on the PIO
  110. Delhi HC judgment on asset declaration by SC judges
  111. Information of a private School accessible by the DEO
  112. Judicial Officers not covered under Sec 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act
  113. Punjab & Haryana High Court asks Punjab Government to implement Sec 4 within 6 months
  114. Penalty under Sec 20(1) without Show Cause Notice not sustainable
  115. Penalty imposed by CIC on PIO of LIC Chennai was correct but the other comments against the FAA are not sustainable
  116. CIC was incorrect in imposing penalty after it had absolved the PIO
  117. CIC should have heard thrid party before ordering diclsoure of information
  118. CIC correctly did not impose penalty since there was no lack of bonafides on part of PIO
  119. Land title documents can be disclosed to even those not included in the title or legal heirs
  120. Kerala SIC correctly imposed penalty since there was no reasonable cause for delay
  121. Applicant can ask for "information" but not any "reasons" for the existence or non existence of a pa
  122. Urban Copperative Banks in Maharshtra are not Public Authorities under the RTI act
  123. Delhi High Court allows disclsoure of ICAI answer sheets under RTI
  124. Societies registered under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act are Public Authorities
  125. CIC was incorrect in not imposing Penalty even though the delay was without "reasonable" cause
  126. CIC was incorrect in nt imposing Penalty even though the delay was without "reasonable" cause
  127. Delhi HC increases compensation amount from Rs. 5000 to Rs. 55,000
  128. Answer Scripts can be disclosed under RTI
  129. Public Authority cannot seek relief even before replying to notice from SIC
  130. Land title documents can be disclosed to even those not included in teh title or legal heirs
  131. Third party should be consulted before deisclosure of vigilance enquiry and Gujarat High Court RTI Rule 4
  132. Allahabad HC stays the suspension of UPSCIC since enquiry had not yet started..
  133. Details of appointments and educational certificates of teachers in aided schools/colleges are disclosable
  134. SIC has enough powers under Sec 20 to deal with contempt cases
  135. Amitabh Bachchan is not a Public Authority under the RTI Act
  136. Property details of a Public Servant are not private and can be disclosed
  137. Loan details of Bank customers is protected under Sections 8(1)(d), (e) and (j)
  138. Disclosure of Salary details does not invade privacy
  139. Third part should be consulted before deisclosure of vigilance enquiry and Gujarat High Court RTI Rule 4
  140. Tender Documents not covered under Sec 8(1) can be disclosed and no need to consult third part if PIO has already denied
  141. SIC has no powers under Sec 18 to order refund of fees and PIO must consult third party before disclosure
  142. SIC cannot order demolition but only order disclosure of information
  143. Ration Shop stock and sales details have to be disclosed
  144. Society registered under Karnataka Societies Act cannot be termed as Public Authority
  145. DAV College Trust and Managemnet Society is a Public Authority
  146. Private aided Colleges are Public Authorities
  147. Cannot declare appointment of CIC and IC as adhoc
  148. Information cannot be provided if there are no records
  149. First Appeal should be heard by the First Appellate Authority
  150. PIO did not provide false and misleading information because she clarified later
  151. High Court cannot give any directions for ammending Act and Rules
  152. Uttarakhand State CIC's appointment is correct
  153. SIC should consist of one CIC and at least one IC
  154. Tamil Nadu Road Development Company is a Public Authority under RTI Act
  155. State Government must clarify the exemption granted under Sec 24(4)
  156. Even an iota of nexus regarding control and finance of public authority over the activity of a private body or instit
  157. Delhi HC refuses to stay UPSC related order of single judge bench
  158. Delhi HC refuses to stay UPSC realted order of single judge bench
  159. PIO must issue notice to "third party" before disclosure AND other important points about RTI
  160. V V Minerals v/s Director of Geology and Mining
  161. Third Party Information - Reliance Industries case in Gujarat High Court
  162. Jai Kant Gupta v/s CIC - Delhi High Court
  163. Aided Schools are Public Authorities under the RTI Act 2005
  164. ACR's can be disclosed - Punjab & Haryana High Court
  165. Information cannot be given free of charge if the SIC gives additional time to the PIO..
  166. SIC correctly condoned the delay and did not impose penalty under Sec 20
  167. SIC Correctly imposed Penalty
  168. Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana is a PA under the Centre and not the State
  169. Disclosure of Officers list under ACB investigations
  170. Approval for seeking inspection under RTI while being accompanied by other person
  171. SIC correctly did not impose penalty under Sec 20
  172. Allahabad High Court Judgement on Sec 18 and other RTI matters
  173. V B Santosh v/s CIC and Othrs...Answer Sheets
  174. Documents regarding a Criminal Case can be given to a Third Party
  175. Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana is a PA under CIC and not under SIC
  176. Sanathan Dharam Girls College is a PA
  177. Arvind Kejriwal vs CIC.....files for Selection and Posting of officers
  178. Canara Bank vs CIC....disclosure of transfer details and guidelines
  179. St Joseph Academy is not a PA....Uttarakhand HC
  180. Sample RTI Application for Income Tax Refund
  181. Information cannot be withheld if application filed with the court and not PIO
  182. Sample RTI Application for Passport Delays
  183. How to know Provident Fund Status through RTI?

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO