Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.23 seconds)Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
State Of Bihar vs Bishnu Chand Lal Chaudhary And Ors on 8 January, 1985
The
Appellate Authority replied on 30.3.09 upholding the decision of the CPIO. He
also stated that the Appellant has claimed self-assumed service of larger
interest of the SC/ST community on disclosure of information without
demonstrating the manner how it would happen. He added that he did not
see any merit in the appeal of the Applicant and dismissed the appeal.
Aggrieved with the reply, the Applicant filed a second appeal dt.24.4.09
before the CIC stating that when the information seeker was about to retire
from service on 31.10.06 and criminal cases titled State Vs. Chandan Lal &
cross complaint Chandanlal Vs. Sham Lal & others were under trial, then Shri
Sham Lal, Sr. TOA (retired), an accused in cross complaint Chandanlal Vs.
Sham Lal & others, made a false and frivolous complaint against information
seeker to Shri Rajinder Singh CGM, Punjab , Chandigarh and that the
retirement benefits of information seeker were withheld illegally on this false
and frivolous information of Shri Sham Lal, Sr. TOA; and that the matter
involves the violation of section 3(1)(ix) and 8(b) of the Scheduled Castes &
Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocity Act), 1989 and the disclosure of
information involves wider interest of the Public specially SC and ST
community.
Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 8 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
The Right to Information Act, 2005
Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
1