Even 1.5 Years in Jail Doesn’t Dilute Section 37 NDPS Rigour: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail in 710 Kg Poppy Husk Case Stay of Conviction Nullifies Disqualification Under Section 8(3) RP Act: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Quo Warranto Against Rahul Gandhi Custodial Interrogation Necessary to Uncover ₹2 Crore MGNREGA Scam: Kerala High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail for Vendors in Corruption Case Order 41 Rule 23 CPC | Trial Court Cannot Decide Title Solely on a Vacated Judgment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Strikes By Bar Associations Cannot Stall Justice: Allahabad High Court Holds Office Bearers Liable for Contempt if Revenue Suits Are Delayed Due to Boycotts To Constitute a Service PE, Services Must Be Furnished Within India Through Employees Present in India: Delhi High Court Medical Negligence | State Liable for Loss of Vision in Botched Cataract Surgeries: Gauhati High Court Awards Compensation Waiver of Right Under Section 50 NDPS is Valid Even Without Panch Signatures: Bombay High Court Agricultural Land Is 'Property' Under Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937: A.P. High Court Tenant Who Pays Rent After Verifying Landlord’s Will Cannot Dispute His Title Under Section 116 Evidence Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Eviction Challenge by HP State Cooperative Bank Clever Drafting Cannot Override Limitation Bar: Gujarat High Court Rejects Suit for Specific Performance Once Divorce by Mutual Consent Is Final, Wife Cannot Pursue Criminal Case for Stridhan Without Reserving Right to Do So: Himachal Pradesh High Court Caste-Based Insults Must Show Intent – Mere Abuse Not Enough for Atrocities Act: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Failure to Inform Detenu of Right to Represent to Detaining Authority Vitiates NSA Detention: Gauhati High Court Awarding Further Interest On Penal Charges Is Contrary To Fundamental Policy Of Indian Arbitration Law: Bombay High Court

High Court Directs State Information Commission To Reconsider RTI Appeal And Must Give Specific Findings As Per Law

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant legal development, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh has directed the State Information Commission, Haryana, to reevaluate an appeal filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, emphasizing compliance with established legal principles. The decision comes in response to a writ petition filed by Arun Kumar Aggarwal, challenging the denial of information requested under the RTI Act.

"A perusal of the above judgment would show that the first appellate authority as well as the second appellate authority has to give specific findings in accordance with the five points, which have been formulated in the abovesaid judgment."

The petitioner had sought information on five specific points under the RTI Act. However, the State Information Commission's order dated 09.10.2023 was found to be inconsistent with the legal precedents set by the High Court in a previous case titled "Rajwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and others" decided on 16.08.2023. In that case, the Court had emphasized the need for detailed, point-wise decisions on information requests, including reasons for non-disclosure if applicable.

"The impugned order dated 09.10.2023 has not been passed in compliance with the judgment passed by this Court in Rajwinder Singh’s case (supra) and thus, the said order deserves to be set aside."

As a result, the High Court partially allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order, directing the State Information Commission, Haryana, to reevaluate the petitioner's appeal expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of the present order.

Date of Decision: 25.01.2024

Arun Kumar Aggarwal VS The State Information Commission

 

Latest Legal News