Back
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Anandi Ramalingam, IC
Ninad Bhalchandra Karpe – Appellant
Versus
Department of Financial Services – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. rti application seeking prosecution sanction information. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. response from the cpio and the first appeal process. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. arguments presented by the appellant and respondent regarding the relevance and confidentiality of the document. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. cic’s observation and directives regarding the cpio’s justification. (Para 8) |
Hon’ble Commissioner _ANANDI RAMALINGAM O R D E R
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.12.2023 seeking information on the following points:
(i) Kindly provide office memorandum dated 26.08.2021 (Numbered F.
No.5/10/2021-Vig.] whereby sanction for prosecution in RC No. 9 (E)/2018 dated 13.04.2018 registered by Central Bureau of Investigation - BSFB (Bank and Serious Fraud Branch) Bangalore was denied. The undersigned was one of the persons with respect to whom sanction to prosecute was denied by way of office memorandum dated 26.08.2021.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 29.01.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
It is stated that the information /documents sought for by you, are confidential/classified documents. Such information falls within the ambit of provision u/s 8(1)(h) of the Right to Informa
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
