https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389748 The High Court allowed the deletion of Respondent No.1's name from the cause title. It found that the information provided to the petitioner under the Right to Information Act was potentially incorrect and misleading. The Central Information Commission's rejection of the complaint was deemed arbitrary, lacking proper consideration. The High Court quashed the impugned order and directed a re-examination based on a previous order. It instructed the Commission to provide a detailed decision within a month, emphasizing diligence and fairness in the process. The writ petition was disposed of with these directives. en-us Wed, 18 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Dec 2019 09:44:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389748 The High Court allowed the deletion of Respondent No.1's name from the cause title. It found that the information provided to the petitioner under the Right to Information Act was potentially incorrect and misleading. The Central Information Commission's rejection of the complaint was deemed arbitrary, lacking proper consideration. The High Court quashed the impugned order and directed a re-examination based on a previous order. It instructed the Commission to provide a detailed decision within a month, emphasizing diligence and fairness in the process. The writ petition was disposed of with these directives. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 18 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389748