Table of Contents
PIO reasoned orders — Bombay HC
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
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.
- 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)
- Muniyappan standard — §11 third-party notice (CIC 2010)
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.
Discussion