Jump to content

Downloads

Category:   All

Featured Downloads

  • CBSE marks not to be disclosed By Shrawan

    • 0 reviews
    • 18
    In our opinion no. Information which is forbidden by law or information of a nature, if disclosed, would defeat the provisions of any law or disclosure whereof is opposed to public policy, cannot be regarded as lawful and is to be ignored and no disclosure thereof can be made or directed to be made.- HC Once a purposive interpretation is given to Section 8, it will be found that information forbidden to be published [Section 8(1)(b)] and information available in fiduciary relationship [Section 8(1)(e)] is exempt. In our opinion, even though there is no express order of any court of law forbidding publication of marks [as is the want of Section 8(1)(b)] but the effect of bringing the regime of grades in place of marks and of dismissal of challenge thereto, is to forbid publication/disclosure of marks. Similarly, in the evaluation process prescribed by appellant, for guidance of its examiners, marks are only to arrive at a grade, perhaps as aforesaid to acquaint the examiners with the grading system and as a transitory stage in the shift from marks to grades.
  • Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana & Sanitation By shubhamkhatri

    Just wanna to share some past interesting RTIs . Will continue to share new ones soon....
  • Personal attendance of the Public Authority is mandatory for the purpose of deciding the issue by CIC- Kerala HC By Shrawan

    • 0 reviews
    • 25
    The petitioner is the Secretary of Vettikkattiri Service Co- operative Bank which is registered under the provisions of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Act. This writ petition has been filed mainly with the prayer to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the second respondent to consider Ext.P6 and pass orders thereon without compelling the personal attendance of the Secretary of the petitioner society. Ext.P6 is a statement filed along with an affidavit and balance sheet of the society in response to Ext.P5 notice requiring the petitioner to appear before the second respondent. In fact, the said notice has been issued to the petitioner for the purpose of deciding whether the society would fall under the definition of `public authority' as defined under section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act. As per Ext.P5 the petitioner was also required to produce all the relevant records. The contention of the petitioner is that since all the required details including the balance sheet and statement have been furnished along with Ext.P6, personal attendance of the petitioner is not required for the purpose of deciding the issue. I am afraid such a contention cannot be countenanced. In case the second respondent requires a clarification on any matter or any statement or any particulars in the balance sheet, the presence of the petitioner is essential and it is essential for the purpose of taking an effective and proper decision on the aforesaid issue. As per Ext.P5, the petitioner was required to appear before the second respondent on 16.11.2010. When this matter is taken up today, the learned standing counsel for the second respondent submitted that the petitioner has not turned up on 16.11.2010 before the Commissioner and therefore the matter was adjourned. It is further submitted that notice regarding the next posting of hearing will be intimated to the petitioner. In view of the discussion above I am of the view that the Secretary of the petitioner society has to appear before the second respondent upon such intimation. The petitioner society is bound to co-operate with the second respondent. S

Highest Rated

Announcements



×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy