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

AJIT BHARIHOKE, B.C.GUPTA, V.K.JAIN
Sanjay Kumar Mishra – Appellant
Versus
Public Information Officer – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners: In person
For the Respondents:Mr. Satinder S Gulati, Advocate
For the Applicant DOPT:Ms. H. Hnunpuii, Advocate Proxy Counsel For Mr. Sanjay Jain, Advocate
For the Applicant in IA/5145/2014:Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocate
RP/2028/2012
For the Petitioner:Mr. Umesh Joshi, Advocate
For the Respondent: In person
For the Applicant in IA/5144/2014:Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocate
For DOPT:Ms. H. Hnunpuii, Advocate
RP/362/2013
For the Petitioner:Mr. Harsh K. Sharma, Advocate And Mr. Umesh Joshi, Advocate
For the Respondent: In person
For the Applicant in IA/5146/2014:Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocate
RP/2806/2013
For the Petitioner: Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Auth. Representative.
For the Respondent: Nemo
For the Applicant:Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocate
FA/275/2012
For the Complainants: Nemo
For the Opp. Parties:Ms. Sapna Chauhan, Advocate
For the Applicant in IA/5148/2014:Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocate
CC/66/2014
For the Complainants:Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, Advocate
For the Opp. Parties: Nemo
For the Applicant in IA/5148/2014:Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

V.K. Jain, Member—The complainant in Revision Petition No.3146 of 2010, namely Shri Sanjay Kumar Mishra submitted an application under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘RTI Act’) to the Public Information Officer (PIO), seeking information detailed in paras 1 and 4 of the application. The information having not been provided within the prescribed period of thirty days, he preferred an appeal before the State Information Commission. The said appeal was dismissed on 06.04.2011. Thereupon, he filed a complaint under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), claiming to be a consumer within the meaning of the said Act and seeking compensation from the opposite parties in the complaint i.e. the Public Information Officer of the Central Information Commission, Punjab and the Chief Information Commissioner of the said Information Commission. The complaint was opposed by the opposite parties; inter-alia on the ground that the District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint arising out of the orders passed under the RTI Act. The District Forum took the view that it had the jur


























































































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