Table of Contents
Lost RTI application — PIO liability — CIC
Central Information Commission · 2020-01-01 · Citation awaited
'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.
- PIO designation and accountability — Delhi HC (HC-DEL 2016)
- PIO transfer during pendency — Calcutta HC (HC-CAL 2019)
- RTI about RTI — meta-RTI disclosure (HC-DEL 2018)
- Arvind Kejriwal v. CPIO (HC-DEL 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