https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198544 The Court found that the information provided by the University regarding the re-valuation of an answer paper was adequate and sufficient, considering the large volume of answer scripts handled by the University. It upheld the confidentiality of details regarding the valuer and custodian of answer scripts under sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, emphasizing the need to follow the procedure under section 11 of the RTI Act when dealing with third-party information. The writ petition was allowed, setting aside the State Information Commission's order and declaring the University's response as appropriate. en-us Wed, 28 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Feb 2018 16:55:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198544 The Court found that the information provided by the University regarding the re-valuation of an answer paper was adequate and sufficient, considering the large volume of answer scripts handled by the University. It upheld the confidentiality of details regarding the valuer and custodian of answer scripts under sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, emphasizing the need to follow the procedure under section 11 of the RTI Act when dealing with third-party information. The writ petition was allowed, setting aside the State Information Commission's order and declaring the University's response as appropriate. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 28 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198544