Back
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
ANANDI RAMALINGAM, Commissioner
Bhoomi Chattar Singh Rachoya – Appellant
Versus
Central Vigilance Commission – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. filing rti applications and appeals (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. hearing proceedings and defenses from respondents (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. commission's final decision and rationale regarding rti compliance (Para 6) |
ORDER
Second Appeal No. CIC/CVCOM/A/2024/125172
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.11.2023 seeking information on the following points:
1.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 26.12.2023 and the same is reproduced as under :-
1.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.12.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 24.01.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
1.3. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 06.08.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/CVCOM/A/2024/125167
2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.12.2023 seeking information on the following points:
2.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 24.01.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
2.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.02.2024 alleging that the
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
