📱Test our Android app — free beta!Join Beta GroupYou'll receive the install link by email after joining.

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.


cases:bombay-hc-pio-reasoned-order-2014 [2026/07/11 09:16] (current) – created - external edit 127.0.0.1
Line 1: Line 1:
 +{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(PIO reasoned orders — Bombay HC,High Court of Bombay RTI,RTI §7,RTI §8,§7(8),reasoned order,Bombay HC,speaking order)&metatag-description=(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.)&metatag-robots=(noindex,follow)}}
 +
 +====== PIO reasoned orders — Bombay HC ======
 +
 +<WRAP center round info 95%>
 +**High Court of Bombay** · 2014-06-01 · Citation awaited
 +</WRAP>
 +
 +//§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 =====
 +
 +//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
 +
 +  * [[/cases/uoi-v-r-jayachandran-2017-sc|Union of India v. R. Jayachandran]] (SC 2017)
 +  * [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-reply-in-wrong-form-2018|§7(9) improper form departure — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2018)
 +  * [[/cases/bombay-hc-pio-deemed-refusal-2014|PIO silence as deemed refusal — Bombay HC]] (HC-BOM 2014)
 +  * [[/cases/sic-chhattisgarh-rti-tribal-welfare-2022|Tribal welfare fund records — Chhattisgarh SIC]] (SIC-CG 2022)
 +  * [[/cases/cic-rti-court-ordered-non-disclosure-2018|Court-directed non-disclosure — §8(1)(b) — CIC]] (CIC 2018)
 +
 +===== Related =====
 +
 +  * [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-BOM|All High Court of Bombay rulings in the corpus]]
 +  * [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
 +  * [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
 +  * [[:cases:search|Full case-law search]]
 +  * [[:cases|Case-Law Database — overview]]
 +  * [[:pio-rti-reply-guide|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
 +  * [[:act|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
 +
 +<WRAP center round alert 95%>
 +**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.
 +</WRAP>
 +
 +
 +
 +//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
 +
 +{{tag>case-law court-hc-bom section-7 section-8}}