CIC No. 280/ICPM/2006: Uncovering the Absence in Legal Records

In the realm of Right to Information (RTI) in India, Central Information Commission (CIC) orders play a pivotal role in upholding transparency and accountability. Users often search for specific decisions like CIC no.280/ICPM/2006 F.No.PB/A06/06/322 dated 15-1-2007 to understand precedents on information disclosure, public authority obligations, or exemptions under the RTI Act, 2005. But what happens when a queried order doesn't appear in reviewed documents? This post dives into a thorough examination, revealing key findings and contextual insights from related sources.

Whether you're an RTI activist, legal researcher, or citizen seeking clarity, understanding why certain CIC references elude standard records is crucial. We'll break down the analysis, highlight unrelated mentions, and connect to broader CIC trends.

The Query: Tracing CIC No. 280/ICPM/2006

The specific identifier CIC no.280/ICPM/2006 F.No.PB/A06/06/322 dated 15-1-2007 suggests a 2006 appeal or matter decided in early 2007 by the CIC, possibly under a sub-code like ICPM. CIC decisions typically follow formats such as CIC/MA/A/2006/XXXX or IC(A)/2006/XXXX, addressing appeals on information denials. However, a comprehensive review of supplied legal documents yields no direct or indirect references to this number.

• No document contains CIC no 280 ICPM 2006, 280 ICPM, or variants.
• CIC mentions exist, but they reference distinct cases like Appeal No. CIC/MA/A/2006/00121 dated 8th August, 2006 Union of India VS Central Information Commission - 2012 0 Supreme(Del) 1695 or Decision No.110/IC(A)/2006-F.No.CIC/MA/A/2006/00274 dated 13th July, 2006 K. Chiranjeevi VS Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, New Delhi - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 3025.
• The date 15-1-2007 aligns with some CIC timelines, but no match emerges.

This absence limits definitive analysis, emphasizing the need for original sources.

Key Findings: No Trace of the Queried CIC Order

Main Legal Finding: The provided legal documents do not mention, reference, describe, or provide any information regarding CIC no 280 ICPM 2006, including its content, significance, or any related context. No analysis or determination of its nature (e.g., as a Central Information Commission order or otherwise) is possible based solely on the documents supplied. Union of India VS Central Information Commission - 2012 0 Supreme(Del) 1695K. Chiranjeevi VS Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, New Delhi - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 3025

Absence of Direct References

A line-by-line scan confirms zero occurrences. CIC content is sparse and mismatched:- RTI case on presidential correspondence cites Appeal No.CIC/MA/A/2006/00121 dated 8th August, 2006 Union of India VS Central Information Commission - 2012 0 Supreme(Del) 1695.- Income tax disclosure discussions reference Decision No.119/IC(A)/2006 – F.No.CIC/MA/A/2006/00220 dated 14th July, 2006, and others like F.No.CIC/AT/A/2007/01374 K. Chiranjeevi VS Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, New Delhi - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 3025.

No ICPM code or 2006 decision numbered 280 appears. CIC consistently denotes the Central Information Commission in RTI contexts, but alignments fail.

The Unrelated '280' Mention

The sole '280' reference is in a sales tax refund dispute: keeping in view the judgment of this court in Civil Writ Petition No. 2272 of 2006 (Perfect Synthetics v. State of Punjab) decided on July 4, 2006 Reported at 2007 6 VST 280 Shiwalya Spinning And Weaving Mills (P) Ltd. VS State Of Punjab - 2007 0 Supreme(P&H) 213. This Punjab and Haryana High Court case on deductions under Punjab General Sales Tax Rules has no connection to CIC, RTI, or ICPM.

Other CIC Contexts

Documents like M.K. Tyagi vs K.L. Ahuja - Delhi (2010) discuss a 2006 CVC-RTI matter with an appeal to CIC on February 15, 2006, but no decision numbers. Similarly, K. Chiranjeevi VS Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, New Delhi - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 3025 analyzes CIC precedents on income tax returns as personal information under RTI Section 8(1)(j), upholding non-disclosure absent public interest, with distinct case numbers.

Insights from Related Sources: Broader CIC and RTI Landscape

While the exact order evades, other sources illuminate CIC's role in RTI matters around 2006-2007, offering patterns for researchers.

• Similar CIC Appeals: References to Application Nos. CIC/MA/A/2006/00722, CIC/MA/A/2006/00723, etc., dated 25.01.2007, and Case No 05/IC(A)/CIC/2006 Tapas Haldar vs UTI Infrastructure Technolgoy And Services Limited - 2023 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 3840ASHOK GANDHI vs MCD - 2023 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 7268. These highlight recurring themes like information disclosure timelines.
• Income Tax and CIC: DIT/CIC/2006/1844-47 dated 17.11.2007 appears in transparency disputes SWASTI RANJAN DEB vs THE STATE OF TRIPURA AND ORS. CIC decisions here, like in Shri Shankar Sharma v. Department of Income Tax (CIC/AT/A/2007/00007 dated 10.07.2007), carry persuasive value though not binding State Public Information Officer, Deputy Director of Vigilance, Panaji-Goa VS Vinesh V Arlekar - 2019 Supreme(Bom) 1127.
• RTI Exemptions: In a misconduct case, PIOs must demonstrate how disclosure impedes investigation under Section 8(1)(h): Burden is on the public authority to show in what manner the disclosure of such information would 'impede' the investigation State Public Information Officer, Deputy Director of Vigilance, Panaji-Goa VS Vinesh V Arlekar - 2019 Supreme(Bom) 1127.
• Public Authority Status: CIC orders like File No. CIC/PB/C/2007/00397/LS dated 18.03.2009 classify entities receiving government finance as public authorities under RTI Section 2(h) Northern Zone Railway Employees Co-Operative Thrift & Credit Society Ltd VS Central Registrar Cooperative Society - 2012 Supreme(Del) 120. Courts may differ, quashing such findings if control is absent Northern Zone Railway Employees Co-Operative Thrift & Credit Society Ltd VS Central Registrar Cooperative Society - 2012 Supreme(Del) 120.
• Compliance Orders: CIC/RECOS/A/2023/120312 dated 25.06.2025 (noting earlier 2006 contexts) directs information provision DIPAK SINGH vs Office of the Registrar Cooperative Societies - 2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 4110.

These examples show CIC's focus on balancing transparency with exemptions, often in tax, vigilance, and departmental probes—potentially relevant if 280/ICPM/2006 fits similar veins.

Exceptions, Limitations, and Practical Recommendations

• Limitations: Without matches, speculating on ICPM as a sub-code is unwarranted; stick to supplied materials.
• Recommendations:
• Verify against CIC archives or RTI portals.
• Note CIC patterns: No override of Article 74(2) on presidential advice Union of India VS Central Information Commission - 2012 0 Supreme(Del) 1695, or tax data disclosure sans public interest K. Chiranjeevi VS Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, New Delhi - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 3025.
• For RTI pursuits, demonstrate public interest to counter Section 8 exemptions.

Disclaimer: This analysis is general and based on reviewed documents. It does not constitute legal advice; consult a qualified professional for specific cases.

Key Takeaways

• CIC No. 280/ICPM/2006 remains untraced in these records, underscoring verification needs.
• Unrelated '280' is a tax citation Shiwalya Spinning And Weaving Mills (P) Ltd. VS State Of Punjab - 2007 0 Supreme(P&H) 213.
• Broader sources reveal CIC's 2006-2007 emphasis on RTI exemptions and public authority definitions.
• RTI seekers should prepare to prove non-impediment for sensitive info State Public Information Officer, Deputy Director of Vigilance, Panaji-Goa VS Vinesh V Arlekar - 2019 Supreme(Bom) 1127.

Stay informed on RTI evolutions—transparency demands diligence. Share your CIC queries in comments!