Back
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Anandi Ramalingam, IC
Sameer Arvind Karpe – Appellant
Versus
Central University of Gujarat – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. rti application denied under section 8(1)(j) (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. public interest justifies information access (Para 4 , 6) |
| 3. cpio's failure to justify denial of access (Para 5 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. directive for revised information provision (Para 9) |
Hon’ble Commissioner _ANANDI RAMALINGAM O R D E R
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.04.2024 seeking information as under:
“I am requesting copies of the CASR meeting minutes for all CASR meetings conducted by the School of Chemical Science from the academic year 2010.”
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 07.06.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
“As per the RTI Act 2005 Section 8 (1) (j) third party information is exempted from disclosure.”
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.06.2024. The FAA vide order dated 29.07.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 20.10.2024 stating as under:
“10.1. Applicant's Bona Fide Status: I was a bona fide student of the Central University of Gujarat during the relevant period. As a former student, I ha
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
