citedby: 1078699

Manisha Singh vs Central Vigilance Commission on 11 January, 2021

II. So far as citing order of CIC passed in Shri R.N. Dwivedi vs. Central Vigilance Commissioner CICWB/A/2008/01082 for denying the information by the CPIO & FAA, it is submitted that the facts and circumstances of order of CIC passed in Shri RN. Dwivedi vs.Central Vigilance Commissioner CICWB/A/2008/01082 are quite different because in that case the Appellant was seeking information about a complaint which was lodged against him by some other person. While in the present case the complainant herself is willing to know the information about action taken on her complaint made to CVC.

Central Information Commission Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - S Punhani - Full Document

Amit Kumar Srivastava vs Central Vigilance Commission on 14 September, 2022

Further, the denial of disclosure of information pertaining to PIDPl complaints has been upheld by Central Information Commission (CIC) also. ln one such decision the CIC in the case of Shri R.N. Dwivedi Vs Central Vigilance Commission in case No. CIC/WB/A/2008/01082, has decided that "the concerned public authority under DoPT Resolution issued in pursuance of the Supreme Court direction in WP (C) No. 539/2003 is obliged not to disclose the identity of the complainant. We are of the view that the disclosure is then, prima facie, exempted under Sec S(1)(g)"

Central Information Commission Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - S Punhani - Full Document

Amit Kumar Srivastava vs Central Vigilance Commission on 14 September, 2022

Further, the denial of disclosure of information pertaining to PIDPl complaints has been upheld by Central Information Commission (CIC) also. ln one such decision the CIC in the case of Shri R.N. Dwivedi Vs Central Vigilance Commission in case No. CIC/WB/A/2008/01082, has decided that "the concerned public authority under DoPT Resolution issued in pursuance of the Supreme Court direction in WP (C) No. 539/2003 is obliged not to disclose the identity of the complainant. We are of the view that the disclosure is then, prima facie, exempted under Sec S(1)(g)"

Central Information Commission Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - S Punhani - Full Document

Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs Central Vigilance Commission on 14 September, 2022

In one such decision the CIC in the case of Shri R.N Dwivedi Vs Central Vigilance Commission in case No. CIC/WB/A/2008/01082, has decided that 'the concerned public authority under DoPT Resolution issued in pursuance of the Supreme Court direction in WPC 539/2008 is obliged not to disclose the identity of the complainant. Any information regarding the complaint under PIDPI cannot be disclosed to anyone because disclosure of the same would reveal the identity of the complainant."

Central Information Commission Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - S Punhani - Full Document

Haider Ali Naqvie vs Central Vigilance Commission on 18 December, 2023

In one such decision the CIC in the case of Shri R.N. Dwivedi Vs Central Vigilance Commission in case No CIC/WB/A/2008/01082. has decided that "the concerned public authority under DoPT Resolution issued in pursuance of the Supreme Court direction in WP (C) No. 539/2003 is obliged not to disclose the identity of the complainant. We are of the view that the disclosure is then, prima facie, exempted under Sec 8(1)(8)" and "there is no obligation on the part of the public authority to disclose this information to the Appellant". Any information regarding the PIDPI complaint cannot be disclosed to anyone, because disclosure of the same would reveal the identity of the complainant, who makes complaint under the provisions of PIDPI Resolution.

Central Information Commission Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajasekhar Kondablou vs Central Vigilance Commission on 14 September, 2022

Further, the denial of disclosure of information pertaining to PIDPl complaints has been upheld by Central Information Commission (CIC) also. ln one such decision the CIC in the case of Shri R.N. Dwivedi Vs Central Vigilance Commission in case No. CIC/WB/A/2008/01082, has decided that "the concerned public authority under DoPT Resolution issued in pursuance of the Supreme Court direction in WP (C) No. 539/2003 is obliged not to disclose the identity of the complainant. We are of the view that the disclosure is then, prima facie, exempted under Sec 8(1)(g)"

Central Information Commission Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - S Punhani - Full Document

Pradeep Kr. Malla vs Central Vigilance Commission on 14 September, 2022

"Further, the denial of disclosure of information pertaining to PIDPl complaints has been upheld by Central Information Commission (CIC) also. ln one such decision the CIC in the case of Shri R.N. Dwivedi Vs Central Vigilance Commission in case No. CIC/WB/A/2008/01082, has decided that "the concerned public authority under DoPT Resolution issued in pursuance of the Supreme Court direction in WP (C) No. 539/2003 is obliged not to disclose the identity of the complainant. We are of the view that the disclosure is then, prima facie, exempted under Sec S(1)(g)"

Central Information Commission Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - S Punhani - Full Document

Prashant Kumar Vidyarthi vs Central Vigilance Commission on 18 December, 2023

In one such decision the CIC in the case of Shri R.N. Dwivedi Vs Central Vigilance Commission in case No CIC/WB/A/2008/01082. has decided that "the concerned public authority under DoPT Resolution issued in pursuance of the Supreme Court direction in WP (C) No. 539/2003 is obliged not to disclose the identity of the complainant. We are of the view that the disclosure is then, prima facie, exempted under Sec 8(1)(8)" and "there is no obligation on the part of the public authority to disclose this information to the Appellant". Any information regarding the PIDPI complaint cannot be disclosed to anyone, because disclosure of the same would reveal the identity of the complainant, who makes complaint under the provisions of PIDPI Resolution."

Central Information Commission Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search

Search Results