NCLAT: Can’t Dismiss Restoration App. if Filed in 30 Days from Date of Dismissal of Original App.  ||  Delhi HC: Communication between Parties through Whatsapp Constitute Valid Agreement  ||  Delhi HC Seeks Response from Govt. Over Penalties on Petrol Pumps Supplying Fuel to Old Vehicles  ||  Centre Notifies "Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Rules, 2025"  ||  Del. HC: Can’t Reject TM Owner’s Claim Merely because Defendant Could have Sought Removal of Mark  ||  Bombay HC: Cannot Treat Sole Director of OPC, Parallelly with Separate Legal Entity  ||  Delhi HC: Can Apply 'Family of Marks' Concept to Injunct Specific Marks  ||  HP HC: Can’t Set Aside Ex-Parte Decree for Mere Irregularity  ||  Cal. HC: Order by HC Bench Not Conferred With Determination by Roster is Void  ||  Calcutta HC: Purchase Order Including Arbitration Agreement to Prevail Over Tax Invoice Lacking it    

S.D. Windlesh v. Central Information Commissioner and Ors. - (High Court of Delhi) (24 Nov 2015)

RTI is beneficial legislation cannot be used to harass

MANU/DE/3819/2015

Right to Information

The Delhi High Court rejected claims of a Petitioner claiming willful non-compliance by the police in not providing him information under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Among others, the Petitioners had asked to be provided a monthly account for the past ten years of cognizable offences received and FIRs recorded by each police station in the North-East district of Delhi. In reply, the Office of Deputy Commissioner had allowed Petitioner to spend up to one month to inspect the relevant record. The High Court agreed with the reply, noting that the police was not required to maintain a record such as the one called for, only the information therein. It raised doubts about the Petitioner’s credentials as an “RTI activist”, asking “why does [he] not sit down in the police station”. It reiterated that “obligation of the public authority under Section 4 of the Act has expressly been made subject to cost effectiveness and to the extent possible”; in the instant case, fulfilling Petitioner’s request would have required diverting several police personnel from their duties.

Relevant : Central Board of Secondary Education Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay MANU/SC/0932/2011 Prem Lata Vs. Central Information Commission MANU/DE/0540/2015 Section 4 Right to Information Act, 2005 Act

Tags : RTI   POLICE   FIR   RECORD   PERUSE  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved