AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
Acts
  • Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act,
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 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act,

    Aurobindo Prusty v. Central Public Information Officer, Asstt. Secy., Bar Council Of India .

    1. The appellant filed RTI application dated 16.12.2015 seeking information regarding: application along with all documents furnished by the Biraja Law College, Jajpur for fresh inspection and extension applications of Biraja Law College, Jajpur for affiliation after the publication of Rules of Education 2008 and copy of its order.

    2. The CPIO responded on 02.01.2016. The appellant filed first appeal dated 01.02.2016 with First Appellate Authority (FAA). The FAA responded on 19.02.2016. The appellant filed second appeal on 08.04.2016 before the Commission on the ground that information has not been provided to him.

    Hearing:

    3. The appellant participated in the hearing through VC. The respondent was personally present in the hearing.

    4. The respondent had placed on record their written submissions dated 09.07.2017.

    5. The appellant referred to his RTI application dated 16.12.2015 and stated that the CPIO has denied the information to him under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which is wrong.

    6. The appellant stated that the information sought by him is public information and can be furnished under the RTI Act. He stated that complete information should be provided to him.

    7. The respondent referred to their written submissions and stated that the Biraja Law College, Jajpur, Odisha had applied to the Bar Council of India for recognition on 26.11.2015 with supporting documents. The Law College had to be inspected by the Bar Council of India and inspection report was to be placed before the Council for its consideration. Since the inspection of the Law College was pending, therefore before inspection of the college it was not proper to disclose the documents to the third party. Therefore, they had informed the appellant that the documents could not be provided to any third party.

    8. The respondent reiterated that at the time of filing of RTI application and first appeal by the appellant, the inspection of the Law College was pending.

    Discussion/Observations:

    9. The Commission observed that the respondent had denied the information to the appellant under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, but had not mentioned anything about ongoing process of inspection for Biraja Law College, Jajpur, Odisha.

    DECISION

    10. The respondent is directed to give revised reply to the appellant on his RTI application dated. 16.12.2015 giving clear reasons for denying information, within 7 days from the date of receipt of this order.

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

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Aurobindo Prusty v. Central Public Information Officer, Asstt. Secy., Bar Council Of India .
    (Jul 10, 2017)