RTI >> Judgments >> High Court >> Definition of Information
| S.No. | HIGH COURT CASE | DATE OF JUDGMENT | JUDGMENT |
|---|---|---|---|
| 16 |
W.P. (C) 495/2015 (149.89 KB) 
|
19 Jan, 2015 | VIRENDRA YADAV versus CPIO, Department of Financial Services Information regarding the Chairpersons of Indian Bank Association (IBA), who were appointed to the said organization, was denied on the ground that the same is not with the Department of Financial Services. Petitioner contends that information in respect of IBA can be accessed and provided by Department of Financial Services under section 2 (f) of RTI Act. The Court held that there is no reason to doubt the veracity of the stand taken by the CPIO that once IBA is declared as an entity which is not a public authority, the RTI Act cannot be used to access information from the IBA. The relevant sections have been discussed in paragraph Numbers 8 of the judgement. |
| 17 |
Writ Petition No. 590 of 2009 (425.68 KB)
|
10 Oct, 2014 | Pravara Medical Trust & Pravara Institute of Medical Sciences at Loni Vs. Union of India Whether a Deemed University receiving no grants from Government is Public Authority or not? If the authority or body or an institution of self Government is established or constituted by a notification issued by the appropriate Government, it is not necessary that in order to include such institution, body or authority within the definition of “public authority”, the same must receive finance from the appropriate Government or shall be owned, controlled by the appropriate Government. The definition of “public authority” falling under Section 2(h)(d) is inclusive of body owned, controlled or substantially financed or nongovernment organisation substantially financed directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government. The relevant sections have been discussed in paragraph Numbers 9, 13 and 14 of the judgement. |
| 18 |
W.P.(C) 2258/2012 and CM APPL. 4845/2012 High Court of Delhi (64.81 KB)
|
20 Feb, 2014 | UOI Vs Praveen Gupta In the opinion of this court, the primary duty of the officials of the MEA is to maintain good diplomatic relations with different countries and to promote as well as protect the political, economic interest of the country abroad. If the limited manpower and resources of the MEA are devoted to address such meaningless and vague queries this court is of the opinion that the office of the MEA would come to a standstill. |
| 19 |
W.P. (C).N0. 31947 of 2013 (P) (111.64 KB)
|
31 Jan, 2014 | John Numpeli vs The Public Information Officer/Assistant Executive Engineer-I, Office of the Town Planning officer, Cochin Corporation, Ernakulam-682 021, The Executive Engineer-I, Office of the Town planning Officer, Cochin Corporation, Ernakulam-682021 & State of Government Department, Secretariat, Thir Kerala, Represented by Secretary to Local Self Gouvananthapuram-695 001 The petitioner had sought for an order directing the first respondent to certify the copies of information issued under the Act. The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala held that in the light of the provisions contained in sections 2(f) and 2(j) of the Act, the stand taken by the respondent that the Act does not contemplate issue of certified copies of documents or records cannot be sustained. The Court directed the first respondent to issue a fresh set of documents sought for duly certifying them. The relevant sections have been discussed in paragraph Numbers 3 of the judgement. |
| 20 |
W.P. (C).3422/2012 (238.89 KB)
|
16 Sep, 2013 | Population Services International V.S. Rajesh Dhiman Section 2(h) Whether the Population Services International is the public authority or not under the RTI Act? The Honourable High Court of Delhi held that the exercise as to whether the organizations and societies from which the funding was received by the petitioner the question as to whether the funding received by the petitioner from such organisations societies can be said to be a substantial funding or not is also a matter which cannot be gone into write petition. The matter was remanded back to the Information Commission to decide in the light of this order as to whether the petitioner is substantially funded either directly or indirectly by the appropriate Government or not. The petitioner had sought for an order directing the first respondent to certify the copies of information issued under the Act. The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala held that in the light of the provisions contained in sections 2(f) and 2(j) of the Act, the stand taken by the respondent that the Act does not contemplate issue of certified copies of documents or records cannot be sustained. The Court directed the first respondent to issue a fresh set of documents sought for duly certifying them. The relevant sections have been discussed in paragraph Numbers 5 of the judgement. |
| 21 |
WP(C).No. 21488 of 2016 (I) (106.43 KB)
|
01 Nov, 2011 | P.S. Jayakumar Vs. Central Information commission and others Information sought Information related to decisions taken by the bank with reference to the loan which applicant defaulted and case filed with CBI. The PIO and FAA stated that information sought did not qualify under section 2(f) of RTI Act and therefore rejected. Decision of High Court The High Court upheld the order of PIO and FAA. |
| 22 |
Writ Petition No. 1887 of 2010 (251.19 KB)
|
11 Oct, 2010 | The Board of Management of the Bombay Properties of the Indian Institute of Science Vs. The Central Information Commission The question of law was whether the Board of Management of the Bombay Properties of IISc is Public Authority. The CIC order holding that the petitioner is a public authority as defined under Section 2(h)(d) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 was upheld. The relevant sections have been discussed in paragraph Numbers 9 of the judgement. |