<?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 507 - PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245054</link>
    <description>The court upheld the denial of information under the RTI Act, emphasizing the protection of personal information and the absence of a genuine public interest in the petitioner&#039;s requests. The judgment highlighted the need to balance transparency with privacy rights and rejected the petitioner&#039;s claims based on personal motives. The court found that the information sought was personal and not related to public activities, falling under exemptions in Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The writ petition challenging the denial of information was dismissed for lack of grounds for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 08 Mar 2014 06:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=348805" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (3) TMI 507 - PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245054</link>
      <description>The court upheld the denial of information under the RTI Act, emphasizing the protection of personal information and the absence of a genuine public interest in the petitioner&#039;s requests. The judgment highlighted the need to balance transparency with privacy rights and rejected the petitioner&#039;s claims based on personal motives. The court found that the information sought was personal and not related to public activities, falling under exemptions in Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The writ petition challenging the denial of information was dismissed for lack of grounds for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245054</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>