Back
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Anandi Ramalingam, IC
Aditi – Appellant
Versus
CPIO: Indian Institute of Management: Ahmedabad – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. rti application seeking information. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. first appeal asserts information was misleading. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. absence of appellant during proceedings. (Para 5) |
| 4. respondent provided all relevant information. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. appeal dismissed based on procedural adherence. (Para 8) |
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 31.05.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. Ref.: 1. Letter F.No 2-1/2024-TS.V dated January 15, 2024 received by IIMA from Section Officer (Mgt), Deptt of Higher Education with complaints CVC 32214.2023 dated 17.10.2023 and 21942/2023 dated 20.07.2023
2. Letter F.No 16-14/2024-TS.V sent to PIO IIMA (Yourself) on 08.03.204 from Section Officer (Mgt), Deptt of Higher Education to furnish information under the RTI Act to the RTI Application CVCOM/R/E/23/00819 dated 23.12.2023 enclosed therein with this letter The information towards my RTI CVCOM/R/E/2023/00819 – forwarded to you vide above letter Ref. 2 – has not been received as per the RTI Act in the timeframe of one month (received by you on 08.03.2024).
Hence I am submitting this RTI as a gentle reminder to please provide me the sought information under the RTI Act. F
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
