HOPE THAT THIS WILL HELP SOME ONE TO FIGHT HIS CASE AGAINST FALSE 498A

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 18(1) OF THE RTI ACT 2005

SECONF APPEAL  UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF THE RTI ACT 2005

 

     UR NAME (Complainant & Appellant)

 

Versus

1. Shri. PIO NAME  (DESIGNATION OF PIO)

2. Shri. FAA NAME (DESIGNATION OF FAA)

 

LIST OF DATES & INDEX OF DOCUMENTS

Description                                                                Date       Page No.

List of Dates, Index of documents………………………………..  DATE OF APPLICATION………….. 1

Certificate about proof of service to Respondents…………DATE OF APPLICATION……………2

Complaint……………………………………………………………………….. DATE OF APPLICATION…….. 3-17

RTI application Copy(ATTACH COPY OF RTI)…………………………………………………….. DATE OF UR RTI…… 18-19

PIO Reply Copy(ATTACH PIO REPLY)……………………………………………………………… DATE OF PIO REPLY………… 20

First Appeal Copy(ATTACH UR FIRST APPEAL COPY)…………………………………………………………… DATE OF UR FA…… 21-24

F.A.A’s reply(ATTACH FAA REPLY)……………………………………………………………………. DATE OF REPLY OF FAA………… 25

Proof of Service / Speed Post to the respondents.(ATTACH  PHOTOCOPY OF SPEED POST FOR THE RESPONDENTS)……… DATE OF SPEED POST………… 26

ADVICE TO RESPONDENTS

Regulation 12 of “The Central Information Commission (Management) Regulations, 2007” reads as follows:

Filing of Counter Statement by the Central Public Information Officer or the First Appellate Authority:- After receipt of a copy of the appeal or complaint, the Central Public Information Officer or the First Appellate Authority or the Public Authority shall file counter statement along with documents, if any, pertaining to the case. A copy of the counter statement(s) so filed shall be served to the appellant or complainant by the CPIO, the First Appellate Authority or the Public Authority, as the case may be.

This is for your information and ready reference. Please act accordingly.

 

 

UR NAME

Date:                                                                                   (Complainant & Appellant)

 NEXT PAGE 

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 18(1) OF THE RTI ACT 2005

SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF THE RTI ACT 2005

 

CERTIFICATE

It is certified that the enclosed matter under appeal/complaint has not been filed previously, or is pending with any court or tribunal or with any other authority.

 

 

 

CERTIFICATE ABOUT PROOF OF SERVICE TO THE RESPONDENTS

It is certified that a copy of this Complaint and Appeal is being sent to each of the respondents on the same day as the Complaint/ Appellant is being sent to the Central Information Commission, and the original proof of service shall be presented before the CIC, if requested / demanded, on the date of hearing, or earlier. The Xerox of the same i.e. Speed Post is attached here with this complaint/ appeal on last page.

 

UR NAME

Date:                                                                                   (Complainant & Appellant)

 

 NEXT PAGE

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 18(1) OF THE RTI ACT 2005

SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF THE RTI ACT 2005

 

UR NAME AND ADDRESS

…………………………………………… Complainant/ Appellant

 

VERSUS

1.     PIO NAME AND ADDRESS FULL.

2.     FAA NAME ADDRESS FULL ADDRESS…………………………………………………Respondents

 

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

1.     The Complainant and Appellant had filed an RTI seeking information about certified copies of service book of Shri NAME OF GOVT EMPLOYEE in RTI date DATE OF RTI. The information would only help in absolving compliant from false prosecution and criminal harassment. Since the case is against state of UR 498A STATE, so it involves larger Public Interest attached to it.

2.     The Complainant and Appellant had filed an RTI application for information on dated ——————-.

3.     In reply to the RTI application CPIO has replied by his mail reference number —————–PIO REF NUM dated ———- PIO REPLY DATE.

 

4.     PIO has replied that “with reference to your application cited above, it is intimated that the certified copy of complete service book of Mr. XXXXXX cannot be provided under RTI as it contain lot of personal information which is related to third party. In this regard, on taken permission from Shri XXXXXXXX, he replied that he do not want to disclose any of his personal information”.

 

 The Complainant and Appellant with his original RTI application dated XXXXXX had relied on the judgement of Hon’ble CIC, File No.CIC/SM/A/2011/000468, 469 & 1138 dated 17th January 2012 in which same has been allowed to be provided

6.     The Complainant and Appellant again filed first appeal before the First Appellate Authority under RTI Act,ADDRESS OF FAA on dated XXXXXXX, in which complainant and Appellant quoted the latest CIC judgement decision no. File No.CIC/SM/A/2011/000468, 469 & 1138 dated 17th January 2012  Shri Om Prakash Yadav vs. CPIO, Indian Audit & Accounts, Department, O/o. the Principal Accountant General (Civil Audit) Rajasthan, Janpath, Jaipur – 302 005 in which CIC has allowed the same.

 7.     The Complainant and Appellant had also relied on the following judgements apart from the above mentioned judgement during his First Appeal.

 a)     Please refer the decision of Smt. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner File No: CIC/AD/A/2012/001802 dated September 7, 2012

b)    Please refer the decision of Smt. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner File No: CIC/AD/C/2012/000588 dated May 10, 2012

c)     Please refer the decision of Sh. Satyananda Mishra, Chief Information Commissioner, File No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000594, 1493 & 2319,  dated 29 December 2011

d)    Please refer the decision of Smt. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner File No: CIC/AD/A/2010/001128 dated September 22, 2010

e)     Please refer the decision of Sh. Shailesh Gandhi , Information Commissioner , Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/003165/6825 dated 15th Feb 2010

 The Complainant and Appellant had also quoted the judgement of Honorable Chief Information Commissioner Shri Wajahat Habibullah of CIC bearing no CIC/WB/A/2007/00064 dated 19-11-2007 where he defines the concept of privacy ,which may act as a guidance for every public information officer

 “We have in earlier decisions also sought guidance from the U.K. Data Protection Act, 1998 on the definition of private information u/s 2, which defines ‘Sensitive Personal Data’, which reads as follows:

In this Act “sensitive personal data” means personal data consisting of information as to:

a) The racial or ethnic origin of the data subject

b) His political opinions

c) His religious beliefs or other beliefs of a similar nature

d) Whether he is a member of a Trade Union

e) His physical or mental health or condition

f) His sexual life

g) The commission or alleged commission by him of any offence

h) Any proceedings for any offence committed or alleged to have been committed by him, the disposal of such proceedings or the sentence of any court in such proceedings.
If we were to construe privacy to mean protection of personal data, this would be a suitable reference point to help define the concept.”

9.      The Complainant and Appellant received the decision of First Appellate Authority via his reply no XXXXXXX dated XXXXXXX.

 10.  Reply provided by FAA is as under

“After reconsideration of your application, PIO’s Reply and your appeal, it is stated that Service Record contains lot of personal information of the individual Employee and may be disclosed to only his family members besides some other informations which can be disclosed under the RTI Act 2005.  You have to categorically state what information you require. You have neither mentioned this in your application nor in your appeal. USE SEC 10(1) IF PIO OR FAA MENTION SOME DETAILS CAN BE PROVIDED AND DO NOT PROVIDE THE SOME DETAILS WITH CAUTION

In view of the above, your appeal is disposed off”

 11.   After going through this decision of FAA, The Complainant and Appellant states that the FAA, had not only ignored the numerous judgements of CIC which were quoted with the first appeal but had also not provided the information which was in his statutory capacity. FAA himself states that besides some other informations which can be disclosed under the RTI Act 2005  which clearly indicates that he is of the conclusion that information can be provided. FAA failed to appreciate the spirit of RTI Act 2005 where he could have directed PIO to provide the information that he himself concluded can be provide after invoking Sec. 10(1) of RTI ACT 2005 to sever those portions of the record of Mr. xxxxxxx that are exempt from disclosure under any of the subclauses of 8(1) of the RTI ACT.(USE SEC 10(1) IF PIO OR FAA MENTION SOME DETAILS CAN BE PROVIDED AND DO NOT PROVIDE THE SOME DETAILS WITH CAUTION)

 

12.  This had already been a set principle held by Hon’ble CIC in its numerous previous judgements to provide copies of service records and thus the denial of information on the ground that some part of information can only be provided which is only known to PIO and FAA; shows the malafide intentions of not willing to provide any information.

GROUNDS OF COMPLAINT AND APPEAL

  1. This complaint is necessary so that the Commission may conduct a field enquiry in respect of the information which is the subject matter of this complaint.
  2. The Complainant and Appellant submit that Respondent had violated the letter and the spirit of the RTI Act which was enacted to not only ensures access to information but also to fix accountability of PIO. The FAA also disposed the RTI application at his end without mentioning the Time frame for the Second Appeal and also the not mentioned the address of the Second Appellant Authority.
  3. The Complainant and Appellant submits neither the PIO nor the FAA authority has stated explicitly under which section of the RTI ACT 2005 the information is denied to him.
  4. The Complainant and Appellant submits the FAA in his decision had submitted that besides some other informations which can be disclosed under the RTI Act 2005”which clearly indicates that he is of the conclusion that information can be provided.  As per  Sec 10(1) of the RTI ACT 2005 which states that 

“10. (1) Where a request for access to information is rejected on the ground that it is in relation to information which is exempt from disclosure, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, access may be provided to that part of the record which does not contain any information which is exempt from disclosure under this Act and which can reasonably be severed from any part that contains exempt information.

 The FAA,  has thus failed to atleast disclose that part of information which he feels can be disclosed after invoking Sec. 10(1) of RTI ACT 2005 to sever those portions of the record of Mr. XXXXX that are exempt from disclosure under any of the subclauses of 8(1) of the RTI ACT.

  1. The Complainant and Appellant submits that rather than disposing application PIO, acted as a friend of Shri XXXX and had denied the information even after the latest CIC judgement in which CIC has ruled to provide such type of information.
  2. The Complainant and Appellant submits that as per provision of the Right to Information Act-2005 before the rejection of the application on these flip flop grounds the CPIO / AA should have given me an opportunity to present my case before him via teleconference atleast.
  3. The Complainant and Appellant submits that BECAUSE, the PIO is duty bound to state/ Mention the exact section and reason for denying any information whereas PIO has just vaguely and sadly mentioned that it is a third party information. This again proves that PIO is deliberately refusing to provide the information and is not applying any logic for rejection of applications.
  4. The Complainant and Appellant submits any reason for denying the information the general ground used in his previous RTI replies is that there is some matrimonial dispute going on between family of Mr. XXXX ( USE THIS IF IT WAS A GROUND OF REFUSAL) and Complainant/Appellant so the information cannot be provided. The Complainant and Appellant submit that there is no dispute between Mr. XXXXXXXX who is a Public Servant and Complainant/Appellant. Any dispute of what so ever nature is between Complainant/Appellant’s wife (who is daughter of Mr. XXXXXXXXX) and Complainant/Appellant which has nothing to do with Mr. XXXXXXXXX . Complainant/Appellant and his family are facing false cases against state of XXXXX  and the information would only help him to absolve himself and his family from false cases. As the case is against state of XXXXXXXX so a greater Public interest is involved in the informations asked in this RTI. As held by Hon’ble CIC that where greater public interest is involved information shall be provided, information should have been provided by PIO.

In Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001446/8514 Honorable CIC has hold that

                     “The outcome of a departmental inquiry is a public activity and the report cannot be considered to be personal information hence Section 8(1)(j) does not apply in the instant case. The PIO has given no reasoning and the FAA’s reasons are not found to be a proper interpretation of the law. It is apparent that the PIO has refused to give information without explaining any reasons how the exemptions claimed by him apply in the instant case. It is necessary that a PIO must explain the reasons how he is coming to a conclusion that certain exemptions apply to the information sought by an appellant.”

 

  1. The Complainant and Appellant submits that In File No.CIC/SM/A/2011/001528, 1854, 2278, 2289 & CIC/SM/A/2012/000394 in a marital discord case ( as a exemption claimed by PIO in many forums this is fit decision to refer) Honorable CIC has hold that

3. During the hearing, the Respondents submitted that, as per their information, the Appellant was married to the daughter of the employee concerned and that there was a marital discord and the Appellant had been trying to seek a lot of information about the said employee with a view to using it against his wife and mother in law. Even if that is so, the request for information cannot be declined only on that ground because the Right to Information (RTI) Act does not require an information seeker to assign any reason for seeking any information. It must be borne in mind that any information can be denied only if it is exempted under the provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

 

11. Because on the ratio given in the case of Shri Ashwani Kumar Goel Decision number CIC/WB/A/2008/00838/SG/1777 dated 18th February 2009 it has been observed by Hon’ble CIC “that  a matter being subjudice cannot be used as a reason for denying information under the Right To Information Act

The Complainant and Appellant  relies on the following judgements where it is clearly stated that matter being sub- judice cannot be a valid ground for the denying of information

a)    File No.CIC/SG/A/2011/001332/BS/0836 dated September 18th, 2012

b)   Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/003224/16954 dated  19 January 2012

c)    Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000513/18259 dated 04 April 2012

d)   Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000714/19109  dated 28 May 2012

e)    File No.CIC/SM/A/2012/000067 dated 27 September 2012

f)     Case No. CIC/LS/A/2009/000937 dated 10.06.2010

g)   Case No. CIC/SS/A/2010/001191 dated 15.4.2011

h)   F.No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00193 dated 18th September, 2006

  1. The Complainant and Appellant  submits that since the service related record of a government servant is decidedly disclosable subject to deletion of certain personal details such as account statement, deduction made , name of the nominee etc the information should have been provided to him by PIO/ FAA in the first time only . The same has been provided in the judgement File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/000570 dated May 9, 2011 by Smt. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner.

 

  1. The Complainant and Appellant  submits that in CIC decision dated July 21, 2011 in  File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/001151 by Smt. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner the following decision is made

2. During the hearing the Respondent submitted that the 3rd party submission was invited by the PIO on 27.1.11 and that the third party had denied disclosure of information stating that information is personal. The Commission however, on perusal of information sought holds that the documents based on which an individual is appointed by a Public Authority cannot by any means be considered as personal and therefore directs that information be provided to the Appellant after ensuring that any information that is personal in nature is severed from the service record of the third party u/s10(1) of the RTI Act.”

 

  1. The Complainant and Appellant  submits that in CIC decision dated August 26, 2011 in  File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/001330 by Smt. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner the following decision is made

“The PIO is also directed to show cause why penalty under Section 20 (1) of the RTI-Act should not be imposed on him for a) not complying with the provisions  of section 6(3) of the RTI-Act, and b) initially declining the disclosure of the information (service record), which is decidedly disclosable with the exclusion of certain personal information (such as deduction made in the salary, name of nominee etc.) Returnable by 26.09.2011”

  1. The Complainant and Appellant  submits that in CIC decision dated January 27, 2012 in  File No: CIC/AD/A/2012/000036 by Smt. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner the following decision is made

4. It has been the consistent position of the Commission in past cases that information/document based on which a government servant receives benefits from the Government cannot be categorized as ‘personal’ to that employee. Further, the information (like grade pay, transfer & posting, promotion etc.) of a government servant which is already in circulation within the public authority is not prohibited from disclosure under the provisions of the RTI -Act.  

In view of the above, the PIO is directed to furnish the information with respect to item nos. 1, 2 & 4, as demanded in the present appeal, to the Appellant by 22.02.2012. The PIO, however, under Section 10(1)   of the RTI-Act should withhold those portions of information (like details of nominees, deductions being made from salary, contributions, ACRs, DAR proceedings etc.) from disclosure which falls under the exemption category of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI- Act.”

 

  1.  BECAUSE, Hon’ble Information Commissioner Shri Sailesh Gandhi of CIC bearing his Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2009/000702/4128 dated 14-07-2009 where he defines the concept of privacy, which may act as guidance for every public information officer. The Commission in its decision  had held as follows :-

 

This information is very important for the Complainant as he is facing a threat of arrest and needs the information to prove his innocence. Not granting such information clearly leads to violation of the fundamental right of the Complainant as provided under Article 21 of the Constitution.  If The Complainant has more than one way of seeking remedy he has the freedom to opt for the way which is more convenient for him. No claim has been made by the PIO of any exemption under the RTI Act to deny the information. If a Public Authority has a procedure of disclosing certain information which can also be accessed by a Citizen using the Right to Information Act, it is the Citizen’s prerogative to decide which route he wishes to take. The existence of another method of accessing information cannot be a justification to deny the Citizen his freedom to exercise his fundamental right codified under the Right to Information Act. If the Parliament wanted to restrict this right, it would have been stated expressly in the Act. Nobody else has the right to constrain or limit the rights of the Sovereign Citizen.  There is no provision in the Right to Information Act which restrains the Citizen’s right to use it if another route to access information has been offered. It is a Citizen’s right to use the most convenient and efficacious means available to him.

17. The Complainant and Appellant  submits that the CPIO has failed to access the information available to him in his statutory capacity as CPIO u/s 5(1) of RTI Act read with 5 (4) and 5 (5) of the RTI Act.

18. That under the Universal Declaration of the Human Rights adopted by the united nation in 1948 assured by article 19 that everyone has right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media, regardless of the frontiers.

19. That in Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Govt. of India and others Vs. Cricket Association of Bengal and others, 1995(2) SCC 161 the Hon’ble Apex Court has remarks about this right in the following term:-

“The right to freedom of speech and expression includes the right to receive and impart information. For ensuring the free speech right of the citizens of this country, it is necessary that the citizens have the benefits of plurality of views and a range of opinions on all public issues. A successful democracy posits an ‘aware’ citizenry. Diversity of opinions, views, ideas and ideologies is essential to enable the citizens to arrive at informed judgement on all issues touching them.

20. BECAUSE, The disclosure of the information would not lead to unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the any individual.

Certain human rights such as liberty, freedom of expression or right to life are universal and therefore would apply uniformly to all human-beings worldwide. However, the concept of ‘privacy’ is a cultural notion, related to social norms, and different societies would look at these differently. Therefore referring to laws of other countries to define ‘privacy’ cannot be considered a valid exercise to constrain the Citizen’s fundamental Right to Information in India. Parliament has not codified the right to privacy so far, hence in balancing the Right to Information of Citizens and the individual’s Right to Privacy the Citizen’s Right to Information would be given greater weightage.

  1. BECAUSE, “In Peoples Union of Civil Liberties Vs. Union of India, however, in his judgment of 13.2.2003 Shri P.V. Reddy J. the Hon’ble Court in its decision  had held as follows :-

When there is a competition between the right to privacy of an individual and the right to information of the citizens, the former right has to be subordinated to the latter right as it serves larger public interest. The right to know about the candidate who intends to become a public figure and a representative of the people would not be effective and real if only truncated information of the assets and liabilities is given.”

 

  1. BECAUSE, That access to information under section 3 of the Act is the rule and exemption under section 11, the exception. Mere saying that the information would invade anybody’s privacy and falls under the category of IIIrd party is no ground to deny the information to those who require the said information for suitably protecting their fundamental rights as well as to protect themselves from the rigmarole of trial. By refusal of the information, the respondent is trying to dodge the appellant of his reasonable demand for the information.

23. Thus by refusing the information sought, the respondent will defeat the object of the act i.e. RTI for which it was created. The object of the Act is to provide for setting out the practical regime of the right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority.

24. That by refusing the information, the respondent has completely disregarded the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, the appellant most respectfully submits that the right to information was explicitly held to be a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India for the first time by Justice K. K. Methew in State of U.P. Vs. Raj Narain 1975 4 SCC 428.

  1. BECAUSE, That the right based enactment is akin to welfare measure and the act should receive a liberal interpretation and therefore the appellant be granted the information forthwith without any legal wrangles and complications.
  1.  The Complainant and Appellant submits that he still relies on the following judgements of Hon’ble CIC which CIC will consider while making its decision

a)     File No.CIC/SM/A/2011/000468, 469 & 1138 dated 17th January 2012  

b)    Please refer the decision of Smt. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner File No: CIC/AD/A/2012/001802 dated September 7, 2012

c)     Please refer the decision of Smt. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner File No: CIC/AD/C/2012/000588 dated May 10, 2012

d)    Please refer the decision of Sh. Satyananda Mishra,  Information Commissioner, Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00669- SM,  dated 16 June  2009

e)     Please refer the decision of Sh. Satyananda Mishra, Chief Information Commissioner, File No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000594, 1493 & 2319,  dated 29 December 2011

f)      Please refer the decision of Smt. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner File No: CIC/AD/A/2010/001128 dated September 22, 2010

g)     Please refer the decision of Sh. Shailesh Gandhi , Information Commissioner , Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/003165/6825 dated 15th Feb 2010

h)    Please refer the decision of Smt. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/000570 dated May 9, 2011

i)       Please refer the decision of Smt. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/001151 dated July  21, 2011

j)       Please refer the decision of Smt. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner  File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/001330 dated  August 26, 2011

k)     Please refer the decision of Smt. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner  File No: CIC/AD/A/2012/000036 dated  January 27, 2012

l)       Please refer the decision of Smt. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner  File No: CIC/AD/C/2012/001236 dated  October 19, 2012

m)  Please refer the decision of Sh. M.L. Sharma, Central Information Commissioner  File No: CIC/LS/A/2011/001461 dated  February 08, 2012

n)    Please refer the decision of Smt. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner  File No: CIC/SG/C/2011/000434 dated  November 22, 2011

  • o)    Please refer the decision of Smt. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner  File No: CIC/SG/C/2011/000434 dated  November 22, 2011

RELIEFS SOUGHT

  1. A thorough enquiry be conducted including inspection of all the sites and documents to which the request for information pertains in order to ascertain the information which  PIO, has concealed in a malafide manner.
  1. The  PIO, be directed to provide complete and comprehensive information free of cost in one batch immediately.
  1. The PIO be directed to not act as a friend of Shri XXXXXX.
  2. The show causes notice to be issued to  The First Appellate Authority under RTI Act, ADDRESS OF FAA  why he may not ask for violation of RTI Act and not showing respect for the CIC judgement already quoted in the First Appeal.
  1. The show causes notice to be issued to Shri. XXX  The First Appellate Authority under RTI Act, why he has not direct PIO to provide information which he himself feels can be provided and not used section 10(1) of the RTI for the information which he feels cannot be provided.
  1. Penalty be imposed on Shri. XXXXXX  PIO,  & on to Shri. XXXXX, The First Appellate Authority under RTI Act, Dept/ Office of XX XXX under section 20(1) of the Act for denying information in a malafide manner and showing disrespect to latest CIC judgement.
  2. Penalty be imposed on Shri. XXXXXX, PIO,  & on to Shri. XXXXX, The First Appellate Authority under RTI Act, Dept/ Office XXXXXXX  under section 20(1) for not providing the information which they have admitted can be provided under RTI Act 2005 and is in their statutory capacity.
  1. Disciplinary action be recommended against Shri. XXXXX, PIO, XXX & on to Shri. XXXXX, The First Appellate Authority under RTI Act, Dept/ Office XXXXXX under section 20(2) and penalty to be imposed on Shri. XXXXXX , PIO, XXXXXXXX
  2. Disciplinary action be recommended on to Shri. XXXXX , The First Appellate Authority under RTI Act, Dept/ Office of XXXXXXXXX  and penalty to be imposed on  Shri. XXXXXX , The First Appellate Authority under RTI Act, Dept/ Office of XXXXXXXX  for denying the information which he himself has admitted can be provided under RTI Act 2005 and for not applying section 10(1) of RTI act and thus denied information in a malafide manner.

10. The concerned public authority be directed to pay a nominal sum of Rs.25,000 to the Complainant towards costs under section 19(8)(b).

11. Any other directions/orders as the Hon’ble Commission may deem fit may be passed.

  Name

Signature

 

Date:                                                                    (Complainant and appealant)

 

 

HOPE THAT THIS WILL HELP SOME ONE TO FIGHT HIS CASE AGAINST FALSE 498A

Advertisements