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

2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 4100

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Vinod Kumar Tiwari, Information Commissioner
Anil Chander Bagga – Appellant
Versus
PIO – Respondent


Information sought:

I. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.01.2023 seeking the following information:

“Sh. P.C. Jain, Joint Secretary (GAD), Govt of Delhi, Sachivalya, I.P. Estate, New Delhi was appointed for inspection of accounts of the vide their letter society dated no.47(498)/GH/G11/NW/4046 26/08/2007. Please provide the inspection report submitted by Sh. P.C. Jain with Assistant Registrar, RCS and the action taken by RCS on his report.

II. The PIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 24.02.2023 stating as under:

“The requisite information sought by the RTI applicant is presently not available in the office record of this section.”

III. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.03.2023. The FAA order is not on record.

IV. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

V. The Commission disposed of the Second Appeal on 23.10.2023 and passed the following observations and directions:

“The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, submission made by both the parties and perusal of records, observes that the First Appellate Authority’s (FAA) order has not been complied

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