Explanation of the MP High Court ordered the explanation of the NSUI president; Pulls up CIC, sets up the info panel well

MPs of the Supreme Court's orders

Bopal (Madhya Pradesh): The main bank of the Madhya Pradesh Supreme Court in Jabalpur has asked the state government to explain the result of the President of the State of NSUI Ravi Parmar and to facilitate its approval in MSC within 4 weeks. The division bank of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf have issued the command.

According to the command, the state government was instructed to declare the results of the petent to be examined, which he passed in October 2024.

The lawyer ABHISHEK PANDEY told Free Press: “FIR was registered after protest against Ravi Parmar when he staged against the government, and according to the admission criteria, he was not allowed to appear in MSC Esexmiantion. Parmar approached HC, which referred that Parmar could fill the form. Now his result has not been explained. HC therefore instructed the state government to explain results and to involve Parmar for the consulting meeting. “

HC sets up CIC, sets up the info panel well

Bopal (Madhya Pradesh): The main bank of the High Court in Jabalpur has recorded Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) and explains that it dismissed its legal responsibilities and acted as a representative of the government.

The court said that the CIC had not adequately examined the facts of a case. In its decision, the court imposed a fine of 40,000 rupees for the state information commission, which was paid to the petent Neraj Negam, which the requested information had been robbed within the prescribed period of 30 days.

On March 26, 2019, NEEAJ NARAM had submitted an application for information application (RTI) and requested details of the veterinary department.

The application was received by the authorities on the same day. Despite the legal requirement to provide the information within 30 days, the public information officer (PIO) did not meet the request.

According to Section 7 (6) of the RTI Act, information that is not provided within the specified time should be made available free of charge. Advocate VS Choudhary, who represents the information commissioner, argued that the public information officer received the application on March 27, 2019.

However, the application, which was in the file, clearly wore the seal, which shows on March 26, 2019 as the date of retention. He said that this discrepancy not only undermined the position of the state, but also revealed the failure of the authorities to read and present the facts before the court.