Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner-trust was a "public authority" within the meaning of the Right to Information Act, 2005. (ii) Whether the information sought was exempt from disclosure under the Act.
Issue (i): Whether the petitioner-trust was a "public authority" within the meaning of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Analysis: The trust was constituted under a State enactment and its administration, management and governance were vested in a Board created by that law. A body constituted under a law made by the State Legislature falls within the statutory definition of "public authority" under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Conclusion: The petitioner-trust is a public authority under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Issue (ii): Whether the information sought was exempt from disclosure under the Act.
Analysis: The requested material comprised the agenda, resolutions and proceedings of the Board meeting. The information did not fall within any of the exemption categories enumerated in Section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Conclusion: The information sought was not exempt from disclosure.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the disclosure orders failed, and the writ petition was not sustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: A body constituted under a State statute is a public authority under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, and information not covered by the exemptions in Section 8 must be disclosed.