Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI • Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions • Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations • Issue-wise legal analysis • Practical arguments and supporting content • Professionally structured draft ready for further review.
Penalty under RTI Act 2005 overturned, appointment of unqualified CPIOs criticized The penalty imposed under the Right to Information Act, 2005 for delay in supplying information was challenged in a writ petition. The Chief Information ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Penalty under RTI Act 2005 overturned, appointment of unqualified CPIOs criticized
The penalty imposed under the Right to Information Act, 2005 for delay in supplying information was challenged in a writ petition. The Chief Information Commissioner criticized the appointment of non-qualified individuals as CPIOs. The court found that the penalty on the petitioner, who was not a designated CPIO, was based on a wrong assumption and without notice. The order imposing the penalty was set aside, and the matter was remanded for re-examination by the Central Information Commission. The court clarified it did not express an opinion on imposing a penalty, leaving the decision to the Commission. The writ petition was disposed of, and the deposited amount was to be released to the petitioner.
Issues involved: Setting aside the penalty imposed under the Right to Information Act, 2005 for delay in supplying information.
Summary: 1. The writ petition was filed to challenge the penalty imposed for delay in supplying information under the Right to Information Act, 2005. 2. The Chief Information Commissioner rightly expressed displeasure at appointing non-qualified individuals as CPIOs. 3. The two class-IV officials were assisting the CPIO and were not solely responsible for collecting and supplying information. 4. CPIOs cannot escape their obligations and duties under the Act, and necessary consequences follow in case of failure or delay. 5. The penalty imposed on the petitioner, who was not designated as a CPIO, was based on a wrong assumption and without issuing any notice. 6. The impugned order imposing penalty on the petitioner was set aside, and the matter was remanded back for re-examination by the Central Information Commission. 7. The Central Information Commission will re-examine the case, issue notice to the concerned CPIO, and impose penalty if required. 8. The Court clarified that it did not express any opinion on imposing a penalty and stated that the Central Information Commission has the authority to pass an appropriate order.
The writ petition was disposed of, and the deposited amount was to be released to the petitioner.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
