- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Delhi High Court says Prior Rejection Not A Ground For Not considering RTI Applications
Delhi High Court says Prior Rejection Not A Ground For Not considering RTI Applications The Court was not satisfied with the reasoning given and found that there was no reason as to why the Authorities could not deal with the Petitioner's RTI applications expeditiously The Delhi High Court directed Respondent – Authorities to expeditiously decide the Petitioner's Right to Information...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Delhi High Court says Prior Rejection Not A Ground For Not considering RTI Applications
The Court was not satisfied with the reasoning given and found that there was no reason as to why the Authorities could not deal with the Petitioner's RTI applications expeditiously
The Delhi High Court directed Respondent – Authorities to expeditiously decide the Petitioner's Right to Information (RTI) applications by observing that prior rejection was not a ground for not disposing of RTI applications.
A single-judge court of Justice Rekha Palli in the High Court of Delhi dealt with the matter titled Cradle Life Sciences Pvt Ltd v Union Of India & Anr.
The grievance raised in the petition was that the RTI applications and appeal preferred by the Petitioner had not been decided by the Respondent – Authorities. However, the Respondent – Authorities contended that the subject matter of information sought in the RTI applications already stood rejected.
The Judge was not satisfied with the reasoning of the Respondent – Authorities and found that there was no reason as to why the Authorities could not deal with the Petitioner's RTI applications expeditiously.
The Court opined that if the Respondent – Authorities were permitted to treat the rejection of a writ petition earlier preferred by the Petitioner as a ground for not disposing of its applications, submitted under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), the same would defeat the very purpose of the said Act.
The Court, therefore, allowed this petition by directing the Respondent – Authorities to expeditiously decide the Petitioner's applications.