<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2014 (3) TMI 475 - PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245022</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the denial of information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 regarding employees of SGPC. The court held that the petitioner failed to establish public interest in seeking the information, deeming the request a personal grievance. Citing the Supreme Court&#039;s ruling in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande case, the court clarified that details like show cause notices and punishments are exempt from disclosure unless public interest justifies it. The court emphasized the necessity of demonstrating public interest for disclosure under the Act, which was absent in this case.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 Mar 2014 15:28:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=348747" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (3) TMI 475 - PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245022</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the denial of information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 regarding employees of SGPC. The court held that the petitioner failed to establish public interest in seeking the information, deeming the request a personal grievance. Citing the Supreme Court&#039;s ruling in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande case, the court clarified that details like show cause notices and punishments are exempt from disclosure unless public interest justifies it. The court emphasized the necessity of demonstrating public interest for disclosure under the Act, which was absent in this case.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245022</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>