How much corruption in the system that without any reason, CIC returned the second appeal?

5 1 vote
Article Rating
Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh

CPlO showed insolence sheerly with the provisions of Right to Information Act 2005 by not providing the sought information. By not providing the sought information, CPIO invited action under subsection 1 of section 20 of Right to Information Act 2005 consequently Hon'ble Sir may be pleased to take action against erring CPIO and pecuniary penalties as prescribed under subsection 1 of section 20 be imposed on the CPIO so that no one may dare to take under teeth the provisions of Right to Information Act 2005.
First appellate authority overlooked the first appeal of the applicant/appellant by taking the provisions of Right to 2005 under teeth as he put the first appeal in dustbin which ipso facto invites disciplinary proceedings against him consequently public authority Punjab National Bank be directed to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him so that others may not follow him.

Arun Pratap Singh
2 years ago

Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading inthrmation or destroyed intbrmation which was the subject of the request or,obstructed in any manner in fumishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: