AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
Acts
  • Section 22 of the RTI Act, 2005.Grounds
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
Acts
  • Section 22 of the RTI Act, 2005.Grounds

    Santosh Kumar Singh v. Central Public Information Officer

    Amitava Bhattacharyya, IC

    Information sought:

    The appellant had sought information on the following points:

    1. Information which has been declined access to by the public authority.

    2. Provision of Air Force Act under which the appellant was charged.

    3. File notings related to appellant's disciplinary action.

    4. Authority under which an officer posted to other unit can be served chargesheet.

    5. Copy of charge sheet, Rule 24 compliance performa, minor offence report, POR of chargesheet and punishment, also copy of sheet roll where offences are endorsed.

    6. Copy of legal provisions which override Section 22 of the RTI Act, 2005.

    Grounds for Second Appeal

    The CPIO did not provide the desired information.

    Appellant: Absent

    Respondent: CPIO Wng. Cdr., Anil Kumar with other Officers.

    During the hearing, the respondent CPIO submitted that there was no original RTI application in the record maintained by them.

    The appellant was not present to challenge the contention of the respondent PIO.

    The Registry is directed to send a copy of the RTI application to the present CPIO. Further, the present CPIO is directed to provide the information categorically, if available on record.

    The order shall be complied with in 15 days from the date of receipt of the order.

    The appeal is disposed of.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Santosh Kumar Singh v. Central Public Information Officer
    (Aug 16, 2016)