PIO reasoned orders — Bombay HC
Quick Reply: A reasoned order under §7[8][i] must identify the specific §8[1] sub-clause and link it to the factual matrix. §7(8)(i) reasoned refusal must cite the specific.
High Court of Bombay · 2014-06-01 · Citation awaited
§7(8)(i) reasoned refusal must cite the specific sub-clause and link it to the facts; bare citation is not enough.
Case details
| Court | High Court of Bombay |
|---|---|
| Decided | 2014-06-01 |
| Citation | Citation awaited |
| Petitioner | RTI applicant |
| Respondent | PIO |
| RTI Act sections | §7(8) |
| Outcome | Applicant allowed |
Outcome
A reasoned order under §7(8)(i) must identify the specific §8(1) sub-clause and link it to the factual matrix.
Ratio decidendi
A reasoned order under §7(8)(i) of the Act must identify the specific sub-clause of §8(1) relied upon and demonstrate a nexus with the facts of the application. A bare citation of '§8(1)' is insufficient and liable to be set aside on appeal.
Keywords
§7(8), reasoned order, Bombay HC, speaking order
Similar cases in the corpus
- Union of India v. R. Jayachandran (SC 2017)
- §7(9) improper form departure — Delhi HC (HC-DEL 2018)
- PIO silence as deemed refusal — Bombay HC (HC-BOM 2014)
- Tribal welfare fund records — Chhattisgarh SIC (SIC-CG 2022)
Related
Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.