SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

S.M.Malik
Kali Ram – Appellant
Versus
State Public Information Officer-Cum-Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner: In Person.

ORDER

Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Presiding Member—The Complainant, Kali Ram, was a Clerk at Check Post Sikanderpur, Gurgaon under the office of Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner, Gurgaon. During his service in the year 1989-90, his Deputy Commissioner recorded some adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential Report (ACR). The complainant made representation against it but it was unheard. Therefore, he sought information from the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the respondent by an application filed under RTI Act, 2005 but the PIO did not furnish the required information within 30 days and supplied incomplete information after lapse of 28 days thereafter. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service on the part of PIO of opposite party, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (in short, ‘District Forum’) seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and sought directions for complete information. The opposite party appeared before the District Forum and stressed upon their point of non-maintainability of such complaint. The District Forum allowed the complaint and held liable the opposite party for deficiency in service and ordered compens






















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top