AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges

    K. Parthasarthy v. Central Public Information Officer

    Vijai Sharma, IC

    RTI application:

    1. The appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.05.2013 seeking information in regard to non-implementation of certain Supreme Court judgements.

    2. The PIO responded on 17.09.2013. The appellant filed first appeal dated 29.06.2013 with the first appellate authority. The response of FAA is not available on record. The appellant filed second appeal dated 17.08.2013 with the Commission.

    Hearing:

    3. The appellant and the respondent both participated in the hearing through video conferencing.

    4. The appellant referred to his RTI application dated 20.05.2013 and reiterated the points mentioned in the RTI application. The appellant stated that he is seeking information with regard to service matters based on Supreme Court judgements. The appellant stated that no information has been provided to him.

    5. The respondent stated that they have complied with the Supreme Court judgements. The respondent stated that all the points of the RTI application are in questionnaire nature and do not come under the provision of RTI Act. The respondent said that they replied to the appellant vide letter dated 17.09.2013 in response to his RTI application.

    6. The action taken by the respondent is in conformity with the RTI Act.

    DECISION

    7. Commission's intervention is not required in the matter.

    The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    K. Parthasarthy v. Central Public Information Officer
    (Jun 22, 2015)