Table of Contents
Muniyappan standard — §11 third-party notice
Central Information Commission · 2010-01-01 · Citation awaited · ★ Landmark
§11 third-party notice omission vitiates the PIO's final order.
Case details
| Court | Central Information Commission |
|---|---|
| Decided | 2010-01-01 |
| Citation | Citation awaited |
| Petitioner | various |
| Respondent | various |
| RTI Act sections | §8(1)(d), §8(1)(e) |
| Outcome | Guidance / other |
Outcome
§11 notice is mandatory where the third party has treated the information as confidential; omission vitiates the final order.
Ratio decidendi
Where information sought was supplied by a third party in confidence, §11 procedure (notice + 10-day opportunity) is mandatory. Its omission is procedurally fatal and the final order is liable to be set aside.
Keywords
§11, third party, procedural requirement, Muniyappan
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.
- Gujarat HC pleadings — third-party RTI not maintainable (HC-GUJ 2019)
- §11 40-day total timeline — CIC directive (CIC 2011)
- Private contractor records with govt — Delhi HC (HC-DEL 2019)
- GSTN / GSTIN data — Delhi HC (HC-DEL 2020)
- Tax returns of public servants — Delhi HC (HC-DEL 2020)
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