AI Thinking...

Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!

Scanned Judgements…!

AI Overview...

CIC No 280 ICPM 2006 F No PB A06 06 322 dated 15.1.2007
Main points: This appears to be a specific CIC order or communication reference, but the provided sources do not contain detailed content or context regarding this order. No direct insights or summaries can be derived from the available data. No specific reference in sources
RTI Requests and CIC Orders
Main points: Multiple RTI applications (e.g., ["2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 2199"], ["2023 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 3841"], ["2019 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 2163"], ["2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 4403"], ["2018 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 756"]) involve requests for official letters, meeting minutes, and recognition documents related to universities, government departments, and organizations. CIC consistently emphasizes that information already provided or not available cannot be disclosed further, citing previous judgments and orders.
Notably, CIC references several judgments (e.g., CIC/MA/A/2006/00722, CIC/MA/A/2006/00723, etc., ["2023 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 3841"], ["2019 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 2163"]) which establish the jurisprudence for handling RTI appeals, including issues of delays, satisfactory replies, and non-disclosure reasons.
For instance, CIC has repeatedly held that if information has already been provided or is not available, it cannot be compelled further, and delays or unsatisfactory replies can attract penalties or directives for proper disclosure.
Specific orders mention that delays were acknowledged but often resulted in CIC dropping penalty proceedings if reasons were not satisfactory ["SRI. R. RAJKUMAR vs SRI MALLAPPA BHIMANNA NARUDI - Karnataka High Court - Principal Bench at Bengaluru"], ["SRI. R. RAJKUMAR vs SRI MALLAPPA BHIMANNA NARUDI - Karnataka High Court - Principal Bench at Bengaluru"].
Several cases involve the quashing of FIRs or settlement of disputes, indicating that CIC's role extends into compliance and dispute resolution, often referencing previous orders and judgments for consistency.
Orders related to delays and penalties
Main points: Orders dated 29.5.2006 and 27.3.2006 establish that delays in providing information were acknowledged, but penalties under Section 20 of the RTI Act were dropped when reasons were deemed unsatisfactory ["SRI. R. RAJKUMAR vs SRI MALLAPPA BHIMANNA NARUDI - Karnataka High Court - Principal Bench at Bengaluru"].
CIC has emphasized that delay without reasonable cause can be penalized, but if reasons are accepted, penalties are not imposed ["SRI. R. RAJKUMAR vs SRI MALLAPPA BHIMANNA NARUDI - Karnataka High Court - Principal Bench at Bengaluru"].
Legal and Disciplinary Proceedings
Main points: Several FIRs (e.g., FIR No 322/2007 under Sections 420/467/468/471/201/120B IPC) have been quashed after disputes were settled, reflecting the judiciary's approach to resolving cases based on settlement agreements ["2023 0 Supreme(Del) 2697"].
CIC cases also involve scrutiny of administrative decisions, appointment processes, and compliance with CIC directions, with some orders being remanded or set aside based on procedural correctness ["
Arvind Kejriwal vs Central Public Information Officer, Cabinet Secretariat - Delhi
"], ["2010 0 Supreme(Del) 538"].
Clarifications on Organizational Status
Main points: Clarifications regarding the status of organizations like the Border Roads Organization (BRO) and Border Road Development Board (BRDB) are provided, emphasizing that BRO is an executive arm of BRDB, and Section 24(1) of the RTI Act excludes certain intelligence and security organizations from disclosure obligations ["2019 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 2163"].

Analysis and Conclusion:The provided sources primarily illustrate CIC's consistent approach in handling RTI applications—emphasizing adherence to judgments, timely disclosures, and accountability for delays. Many orders highlight that if information is already provided or not available, further disclosure is not mandated, and delays without reasonable cause can lead to penalties unless justified. Several cases involve legal proceedings, including FIR quashing and administrative clarifications, demonstrating CIC's role in ensuring transparency and accountability within the framework of existing laws. The specific CIC No 280 ICPM 2006 F No PB A06 06 322 from 15.1.2007 lacks detailed content in the sources, thus no direct insights can be provided about it.

Uncovering the Truth Behind Alleged CIC No. 280/ICPM/2006 RTI Appeal Records

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 2012 0 Supreme(Del) 1695 or Decision No.110/IC(A)/2006-F.No.CIC/MA/A/2006/00274 dated 13th July, 2006 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. 2012 0 Supreme(Del) 1695 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 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 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 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, 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 2023 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 3840 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 2019 0 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 2019 0 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) 2012 0 Supreme(Del) 120. Courts may differ, quashing such findings if control is absent 2012 0 Supreme(Del) 120.
Compliance Orders: CIC/RECOS/A/2023/120312 dated 25.06.2025 (noting earlier 2006 contexts) directs information provision 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 2012 0 Supreme(Del) 1695, or tax data disclosure sans public interest 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 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 2019 0 Supreme(Bom) 1127.

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

#CICOrder #RTIAct #LegalTransparency