Differences

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

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Lost RTI application — PIO liability — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §5,RTI §7,RTI §20,lost application,receipt register,CIC,§5)&metatag-description=(A misplaced / lost RTI application is no defence; public authority has a §5-read-with-§7 duty to track.)}}
+====== Lost RTI application — PIO liability — CIC ======
+<WRAP center round info 95%>
+**Central Information Commission** · 2020-01-01 · Citation awaited
+</WRAP>
+//'Lost application' excuse fails; §5+§7 impose a tracking duty on the public authority.//
+===== Case details =====
+^ Court | Central Information Commission |
+^ Decided | 2020-01-01 |
+^ Citation | Citation awaited |
+^ Petitioner | RTI applicant |
+^ Respondent | Public authority |
+^ RTI Act sections | §5, §7, §20 |
+^ Outcome | Applicant allowed |
+===== Outcome =====
+A misplaced / lost RTI application is no defence; public authority has a §5-read-with-§7 duty to track.
+===== Ratio decidendi =====
+A public authority's inability to locate a received RTI application does not excuse §7 non-response. §5 read with §7 imposes a minimum duty to maintain a receipt register and to be able to track any application. Repeated 'lost' excuses attract §20 liability for the designated PIO / Head of Institution.
+===== Keywords =====
+lost application, receipt register, CIC, §5
+===== 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/cic-ineligible-pio-notice-2020|PIO unavailable — Head-of-Institution vicarious liability]] (CIC 2020)
+  * [[/cases/delhi-hc-pio-designation-2016|PIO designation and accountability — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2016)
+  * [[/cases/calcutta-hc-rti-pio-transfer-2019|PIO transfer during pendency — Calcutta HC]] (HC-CAL 2019)
+  * [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-rti-by-rti-2018|RTI about RTI — meta-RTI disclosure]] (HC-DEL 2018)
+  * [[/important-decisions/court/arvind-kejriwal-vs-cpio|Arvind Kejriwal v. CPIO]] (HC-DEL 2010)
+===== Related =====
+  * [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
+  * [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=5|All RTI cases turning on §5]]
+  * [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
+  * [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=20|All RTI cases turning on §20]]
+  * [[: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>
+~~NOCACHE~~
+//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
+{{tag>case-law court-cic section-5 section-7 section-20}}

Was this helpful? — views