Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court Limitation | 1,142 Days of Silence: Orissa High Court Rejects Litigant's Claim That His Lawyer Never Called SC/ST Act's Bar on Anticipatory Bail Does Not Apply When Complaint Fails to Make Out Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Oral Agreement for Sale Cannot Be Dismissed for Want of Stamp or Registration: Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction Finance Company's Own Legal Manager Cannot Appoint Arbitrator — Award Passed by Such Arbitrator Is Non-Est and Inexecutable: Andhra Pradesh High Court District Court Cannot Remand Charity Commissioner's Order: Bombay High Court Division Bench Settles Conflicting Views Framing "Points For Determination" Not Always Mandatory For First Appellate Courts: Allahabad High Court Delhi HC Finds Rape Conviction Cannot Stand On Testimony Where Victim Showed 'Unnatural Concern' For Her Alleged Attacker Limitation in Partition Suit Cannot Be Decided Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Cheque Dishonour Accused Can Probabilise Defence Without Entering Witness Box — Through Cross-Examination And Marked Documents Alone: Madras High Court Contributory Negligence | No Driving Licence and Three on a Motorcycle Cannot Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Rajasthan High Court LL.B Degree Cannot Be Ground to Deny Maintenance to Divorced Wife: Gujarat High Court Dried Leaves and Branches Are Not 'Ganja': Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under NDPS Act Family Court Judge Secretly Compared Handwriting Without Telling Wife, Then Punished Her Hesitation: Delhi High Court Quashes Divorce Decree Co-Owner Can Sell Undivided Share in Joint Property Without Consent of Other Co-owners — Sale Deed Valid to Extent of Transferor's Share: Orissa 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