welcome to Disposal of Request | Institute of Secretariat Training & Management

S.No.	HIGH COURT CASE	DATE OF JUDGMENT	JUDGMENT
16	W.P No. 3650 of 2012 (318.07 KB)	08 Jan, 2013	Kausa Education & Charitable Trust & Otrs. V.S. Maharashtra State Information Commission & Ors. The petitioner claimed that the school run by the trust is private unaided one and, therefore, it is not public authority under the RTI Act- the authority have answered this issue in its favour and its concurrent findings have not been questioned by the respondent who sought information- the appellate authority, however, directed Education Officer (Secondary) to gather the information from the petitioners and to supply it respondent No 5, an ex-employee is sought to be achieved indirectly, thereby the powers or jurisdiction under the RTI Act are being exceeded & legal right of the petitioner are violated – The Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that a direction by respondent No. 1 in its order dated 10th February 2012 cannot be viewed as excessive. The contention that what is directly prohibited has been achieved indirectly through such a direction or course of action is, misconceived and unsustainable. However, the petitioner have not been given necessary opportunity of hearing before passing of impugned order. The impugned order passed without hearing the petitioners is unsustainable.
17	W.P. 18407 (W) of 2012 (46.83 KB)	18 Dec, 2012	Tanuj Paul Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors. Answer Script – Re-evaluation – the petitioner made an application seeking information relating to the marks awarded in the written examination as well as in the Person Personality Test in the Mathematics subject – the answer script of the mathematics subject was supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner demonstrated before the Hon’ble High Court that the answer to Question No. 29 has been evaluated to be totally incorrect and, therefore, no mark was awarded. The petitioner annexed the answer script of another examinee wherefore it appears that the said examinee had also answered in the manner similar to that of the petition and was awarded full marks. The discrepancy in evaluation is apparent. The petitioner prayed for re-examination and/or re-evaluation of the answer script, which has been turned down by the School Service Commission, as there is no provision for the same . The Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta held that there is no justification in denying re-examination and/or re-evaluation of the answer scripts. Since non-symmetry in evaluation of the answer scripts is apparent, the said school service commission should do re-examination and/or re-evaluation of the answer scripts. The Hon’ble High Court relied upon its own earlier unreported judgment, rendered in the case of Sharmistha Maji Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. (W.P. 10377 (W) of 2012) decided on October 10, 2012, wherein it was held that in order to achieve the declared goal of promoting “transparency and accountability”, the commission, a public authority, while shouldering responsibility, should evolve a mechanism for re-examination or re-evaluation of the answer scripts. Since the preamble of the RTI Act lays down the scope and purpose of the Act, re-examination or re-evaluation by the Commission would be a concrete step for promoting “transparency and accountability”, as it would dispel doubts about the manner of examination or evaluation of the answer scripts. In order words, merely furnishing an answer script does not promote accountability as the Commission has to explain the method or examination or evaluation which ca be done, if sought for, by a candidate by re-examination or re-evaluation of his answer script thus making the system transparent.
18	C.W.P. No. 4787 of 2011 (231.10 KB)	02 Nov, 2012	Fruit & Merchant Union vs Chief Information Commissioner and others A perusal of the aforesaid order shows that the same is totally non-speaking. It is lacking not even in reasons for which it was opined that the information sought by the applicant herein does not amount to personal information or trade secrets of a third party, even the facts of the case have not been referred to in detail. In the absence of brief facts and the reasons contained in the order, it is not possible for the next higher court to appreciate as to what weighed with the authority in reaching the conclusion and as to whether there was application of mind by the authority or the order is arbitrary.
19	W.P. 10377 (W) of 2012 along with W.P. Nos. 13269 (W), 10155 (W), 10193 (W), 13188 (W), 14583 (W),14168 (W), 14186 (W), 10694 (W), 15532 (W), 15533 (W), 15537 (W), 15561 (W), 15666 (W), 15839 (W), 22862 (W), 22862 (W) of 2012 (78.00 KB)	10 Oct, 2012	Sharmistha Maji Vs. State of West Bengal and ORs. An Act to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority – Re-examination or re-evaluation of answer scripts. The petitioners who appeared in the RLST, being dissatisfied with the marks awarded, filed written applications before the Commission under the RTI Act for having copies of their answer scripts – the Commission provided the copies of the answer scripts. The common grievance of the petitioners is that the said answer scripts were not evaluated in a proper manner. The petitioners stated that though applications were filed before the Commission for re-examination or re-evaluation of the answer scripts, however, those have been turned down in the absence of specific provisions in the West Bengal School Service Commission (selection of Persons for Appointment to the Post of Teachers) Rules, 2007. The petitioners contended that since the RTI Act is for promotion of transparency and accountability in the working of every authority, any order denying re-examination or re-evaluation or the answer scripts would be in breach or its object. The Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta held that a Public Authority, while shouldering responsibility, should evolve a mechanism for re-examination or re-evaluation of the answer scripts. Since the preamble of the RTI Act lays down the scope and purpose of the Act, re-examination or re-evaluation by the Commission would be a concrete step in promoting “transparency and accountability”, as it would clear doubts about the manner of examination or evaluation of the answer scripts. In other words, merely furnishing as answer scripts does not promote accountability as the Commission has to explain the method of examination or evaluation which can be done, if sought for, by a candidate by re-examination or re-evaluation of his answer scripts thus making the system transparent.
20	W.P.(C) 1887 of 2010 (251.19 KB)	11 Oct, 2010	The Board of Management of the Bombay Properties of Indian Institute of Science Vs The Central Information Commission The onus to prove the reason for denial of information rests with the CPIO. Directed to provide information to the Applicant.
21	W.P. (C) 4596/2007 (436.18 KB)	17 Aug, 2010	IFCI LTD. Petitioner Vs RAVINDER BALWANI Direction to provide information. Section 2(h).
22	W.P.(C) 6129/2007 (609.06 KB)	14 May, 2010	KRISHAK BHARTI COOPERATIVE LTD. Petitioner Vs RAMESH CHANDER BAWA Respondent Direction to provide information. Section 2(h).
23	W.P.(C) No. 8219 (278.78 KB)	03 May, 2010	INDIAN RAILWAY WELFARE ORGANISATION Petitioner Vs D.M. GAUTAM & ANR. Respondents Direction to provide information. Section 2(h).
24	W.P.(C) 3379/2008 (21.46 KB)	15 Feb, 2010	UNION OF INDIA Petitioner Through: Mr. S.K. Dubey with Mr. V. Dalmia, Advocates versus CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Direction to CPIO for collection of information in a centralized manner.
25	WP (C) 4788 of 2008 (541.35 KB)	30 Nov, 2009	UOI Vs CIC Public authority is entitled to raise any of the defences mentioned in section 8(1) of the RTI Act before the CIC and not merely rely upon the provision referred to by the PIO or the FAA to deny information. An error or mistake made by the PIO or the FAA cannot be a ground to stop and prevent a public authority from raising a justiciable and valid objection to disclosure of information under 8(1) of the RTI Act.
26	W.P. (C) 6661/2008 (225.37 KB)	16 Apr, 2009	U.O.I Petitioner Vs CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION and ORS Directed to provide information to the Petitioner. Section 20 (1).
27	WP(C) No.30963 (34.20 KB)	29 Feb, 2008	V.B. SANTHOSH Vs CIC Answer books of self to be shown to the applicant.
28	WP(C) No.17583/2006 (57.96 KB)	17 Apr, 2007	UPSC Vs CIC The High Court observed that, the UPSC being a public body is required to act and conduct itself in a fair and transparent manner. It would also be in public interest that this fairness and transparency is displayed by the revealing of the information sought. Moreover, Section 8 (2), read in its proper perspective, indicates that access to information ought to be provided by a public authority even where it is otherwise entitled to withhold the same, if the public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests. Section 8(1)(d). Section 8(2).

16

W.P No. 3650 of 2012
(318.07 KB) pdf icon

08 Jan, 2013

Kausa Education & Charitable Trust & Otrs. V.S. Maharashtra State Information Commission & Ors.

The petitioner claimed that the school run by the trust is private unaided one and, therefore, it is not public authority under the RTI Act- the authority have answered this issue in its favour and its concurrent findings have not been questioned by the respondent who sought information- the appellate authority, however, directed Education Officer (Secondary) to gather the information from the petitioners and to supply it respondent No 5, an ex-employee is sought to be achieved indirectly, thereby the powers or jurisdiction under the RTI Act are being exceeded & legal right of the petitioner are violated –

The Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that a direction by respondent No. 1 in its order dated 10th February 2012 cannot be viewed as excessive. The contention that what is directly prohibited has been achieved indirectly through such a direction or course of action is, misconceived and unsustainable. However, the petitioner have not been given necessary opportunity of hearing before passing of impugned order. The impugned order passed without hearing the petitioners is unsustainable.

17

W.P. 18407 (W) of 2012
(46.83 KB) pdf icon

18 Dec, 2012

Tanuj Paul Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Answer Script – Re-evaluation – the petitioner made an application seeking information relating to the marks awarded in the written examination as well as in the Person Personality Test in the Mathematics subject – the answer script of the mathematics subject was supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner demonstrated before the Hon’ble High Court that the answer to Question No. 29 has been evaluated to be totally incorrect and, therefore, no mark was awarded. The petitioner annexed the answer script of another examinee wherefore it appears that the said examinee had also answered in the manner similar to that of the petition and was awarded full marks. The discrepancy in evaluation is apparent. The petitioner prayed for re-examination and/or re-evaluation of the answer script, which has been turned down by the School Service Commission, as there is no provision for the same .
The Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta held that there is no justification in denying re-examination and/or re-evaluation of the answer scripts. Since non-symmetry in evaluation of the answer scripts is apparent, the said school service commission should do re-examination and/or re-evaluation of the answer scripts. The Hon’ble High Court relied upon its own earlier unreported judgment, rendered in the case of Sharmistha Maji Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. (W.P. 10377 (W) of 2012) decided on October 10, 2012, wherein it was held that in order to achieve the declared goal of promoting “transparency and accountability”, the commission, a public authority, while shouldering responsibility, should evolve a mechanism for re-examination or re-evaluation of the answer scripts. Since the preamble of the RTI Act lays down the scope and purpose of the Act, re-examination or re-evaluation by the Commission would be a concrete step for promoting “transparency and accountability”, as it would dispel doubts about the manner of examination or evaluation of the answer scripts. In order words, merely furnishing an answer script does not promote accountability as the Commission has to explain the method or examination or evaluation which ca be done, if sought for, by a candidate by re-examination or re-evaluation of his answer script thus making the system transparent.

18

C.W.P. No. 4787 of 2011
(231.10 KB) pdf icon

02 Nov, 2012

Fruit & Merchant Union vs Chief Information Commissioner and others

A perusal of the aforesaid order shows that the same is totally non-speaking. It is lacking not even in reasons for which it was opined that the information sought by the applicant herein does not amount to personal information or trade secrets of a third party, even the facts of the case have not been referred to in detail. In the absence of brief facts and the reasons contained in the order, it is not possible for the next higher court to appreciate as to what weighed with the authority in reaching the conclusion and as to whether there was application of mind by the authority or the order is arbitrary.

19

W.P. 10377 (W) of 2012 along with W.P. Nos. 13269 (W), 10155 (W), 10193 (W), 13188 (W), 14583 (W),14168 (W), 14186 (W), 10694 (W), 15532 (W), 15533 (W), 15537 (W), 15561 (W), 15666 (W), 15839 (W), 22862 (W), 22862 (W) of 2012
(78.00 KB) pdf icon

10 Oct, 2012

Sharmistha Maji Vs. State of West Bengal and ORs.

An Act to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority – Re-examination or re-evaluation of answer scripts.
The petitioners who appeared in the RLST, being dissatisfied with the marks awarded, filed written applications before the Commission under the RTI Act for having copies of their answer scripts – the Commission provided the copies of the answer scripts. The common grievance of the petitioners is that the said answer scripts were not evaluated in a proper manner. The petitioners stated that though applications were filed before the Commission for re-examination or re-evaluation of the answer scripts, however, those have been turned down in the absence of specific provisions in the West Bengal School Service Commission (selection of Persons for Appointment to the Post of Teachers) Rules, 2007. The petitioners contended that since the RTI Act is for promotion of transparency and accountability in the working of every authority, any order denying re-examination or re-evaluation or the answer scripts would be in breach or its object.
The Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta held that a Public Authority, while shouldering responsibility, should evolve a mechanism for re-examination or re-evaluation of the answer scripts. Since the preamble of the RTI Act lays down the scope and purpose of the Act, re-examination or re-evaluation by the Commission would be a concrete step in promoting “transparency and accountability”, as it would clear doubts about the manner of examination or evaluation of the answer scripts. In other words, merely furnishing as answer scripts does not promote accountability as the Commission has to explain the method of examination or evaluation which can be done, if sought for, by a candidate by re-examination or re-evaluation of his answer scripts thus making the system transparent.

20

W.P.(C) 1887 of 2010
(251.19 KB) pdf icon

11 Oct, 2010

The Board of Management of the Bombay Properties of Indian Institute of Science Vs The Central Information Commission

The onus to prove the reason for denial of information rests with the CPIO. Directed to provide information to the Applicant.

21

W.P. (C) 4596/2007
(436.18 KB) pdf icon

17 Aug, 2010

IFCI LTD. Petitioner Vs RAVINDER BALWANI

Direction to provide information. Section 2(h).

22

W.P.(C) 6129/2007
(609.06 KB) pdf icon

14 May, 2010

KRISHAK BHARTI COOPERATIVE LTD. Petitioner Vs RAMESH CHANDER BAWA Respondent

Direction to provide information. Section 2(h).

23

W.P.(C) No. 8219
(278.78 KB) pdf icon

03 May, 2010

INDIAN RAILWAY WELFARE ORGANISATION Petitioner Vs D.M. GAUTAM & ANR. Respondents

Direction to provide information. Section 2(h).

24

W.P.(C) 3379/2008
(21.46 KB) pdf icon

15 Feb, 2010

UNION OF INDIA Petitioner Through: Mr. S.K. Dubey with Mr. V. Dalmia, Advocates versus CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

Direction to CPIO for collection of information in a centralized manner.

25

WP (C) 4788 of 2008
(541.35 KB) pdf icon

30 Nov, 2009

UOI Vs CIC

Public authority is entitled to raise any of the defences mentioned in section 8(1) of the RTI Act before the CIC and not merely rely upon the provision referred to by the PIO or the FAA to deny information. An error or mistake made by the PIO or the FAA cannot be a ground to stop and prevent a public authority from raising a justiciable and valid objection to disclosure of information under 8(1) of the RTI Act.

26

W.P. (C) 6661/2008
(225.37 KB) pdf icon

16 Apr, 2009

U.O.I Petitioner Vs CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION and ORS

Directed to provide information to the Petitioner. Section 20 (1).

27

WP(C) No.30963
(34.20 KB) pdf icon

29 Feb, 2008

V.B. SANTHOSH Vs CIC

Answer books of self to be shown to the applicant.

28

WP(C) No.17583/2006
(57.96 KB) pdf icon

17 Apr, 2007

UPSC Vs CIC

The High Court observed that, the UPSC being a public body is required to act and conduct itself in a fair and transparent manner. It would also be in public interest that this fairness and transparency is displayed by the revealing of the information sought. Moreover, Section 8 (2), read in its proper perspective, indicates that access to information ought to be provided by a public authority even where it is otherwise entitled to withhold the same, if the public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests. Section 8(1)(d). Section 8(2).