Jump to content

Question

qwest

The RTI application was filed in the Prime Minster's Office (PMO).

 

1) The PMO transferred the RTI to the Cabinet Secretariat u/s 6(3). The CabSec replied that the said info is not in their records.

 

2) The CPIO of the PMO also transferred it to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) u/s 6(3). The CPIO of the MHA then transferred it to the National Archives of India (NAI). No reply was received from either the MHA or the NAI

 

3) After the refusal of info by the CabSec, a First Appeal was filed whose decision is pending.

 

4) After the lapse of the 30 days deadline for the CPIOs. First Appeals were filed with both MHA and NAI.

 

5) No reply has been received w.r.t. any First Appeal.

 

Q.1) What should be done after the lapse of 45 days deadline for the Appellate Authorities?

 

Q.2) The RTI application was transferred to multiple authorities. Who is the main CPIO and FAA now?

 

Q.3) When the Second Appeal is filed, will all the four CPIOs and the four FAAs (i.e. PMO, CabSec, MHA and NAI) will be named in the Second Appeal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
G.R.Vidyaranya

A1. After a lapse of 45 days from filing the First Appeal, you can file a Second Appeal with the CIC u/s 19(3) naming the CPIO/FAA.

A2. Even if an application is transferred to CPIO of another PA (not same PA) u/s 6(3) the original CPIO's responsibility to reply to the original request does not diminish unless the CPIO, to whom the application is transferred, replies. In case of non reply from the CPIO, to whom the application was transferred, First Appeal lies with the FAA of original CPIO. In case of incomplete/unsatisfactory reply from new CPIO, the First Appeal will lie with the FAA of CPIO making the incomplete/unsatisfactory reply.

A3. If your Second Appeal is drafted correctly and chronological chart shows acts/omission/commissions of all officers concerned, it will be up to the CIC to summon concerned CPIOs or FAAs.

 

Our more experienced friends in the forum may guide you better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Sunil Ahya

File SEPARATE Second Appeals for each First Appeals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Prasad GLN

Has any member at any time received information directly from CPIO, PM Secretariat so far ?

(As PMS always transfers applications though that information is available on their records)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
qwest
Has any member at any time received information directly from CPIO, PM Secretariat so far ?

(As PMS always transfers applications though that information is available on their records)

 

One of my RTI application filed at the Ministry of Railways was transferred to the PMO. I am waiting for the reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
karira
Has any member at any time received information directly from CPIO, PM Secretariat so far ?

(As PMS always transfers applications though that information is available on their records)

 

Yes, I have received replies many times and also know others who have received direct replies.

 

You should read the "Business Rules" on the Cabinet Secretariat website. Those will help you understand and also pin point as to who is likely to hold the "information" you want to seek...PMO or the concerned Ministry/Department.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
qwest

The CPIO of the NAI has replied after 30-days deadline through ordinary post. He has refused to provide the info and citing DoPT o.m. no. 11/2/2008-IR dated 10-Jul-2008 has asked me to visit the National Archives of India to sort out the info myself. The First Appeal is pending.

What shall I do when no reply is received from the FAA after 45-days?

 

Move a Second Appeal ignoring the CPIO's reply since it was after deadline?

 

or

 

Move a Second Appeal mentioning the CPIO's reply?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
G.R.Vidyaranya

If information is of primary importance to you, do as CPIO says to inspect the documents and select the ones you need. If procedures are more important then you can pursue the Appeal with FAA or CIC. Waiting list at CIC is almost a year long and once your second appeal is pending, the CPIO will not be too cooperative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • karira
      By karira
      Rare government records pertaining to events leading to abolition of privileges of erstwhile rulers of Indian states appear to be missing from the National Archives here. Senior BJP leader Jaswant Singh came to know about this through an RTI application in which he had sought information on these records. The National Archives said that the documents could not be traced and they were looking for it.
       
      Singh, represented through his Secretary Raghvendra Singh, moved his request before Home Ministry on January 17 this year. He sought an inspection of documents, including cabinet papers and notings that preceded the abolition of "privileges and privy purses" of rulers of then Indian states.
       
      What followed thereafter was a eight-month-long hiatus wherein the records were searched in the Ministry's record office, which finally took a stand that documents and files have been transferred to the National Archives.
       
      The Archives, after its efforts to trace out the records, could only manage to find only two amongst a total of 10 files sought by Singh, who required those documents for research and study.
       
      NAI, however, said its efforts were on to trace out the remaining documents.
       
      A complaint was thereafter preferred before the Central Information Commission seeking appropriate directions.
       
      While the Ministry did not approach its Appellate Authority in relation to his RTI plea, Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah allowed his appeal on grounds that despite Singh's repeated requests, no documents could be provided to him.
       
      Habibullah has directed the National Archives to make "renewed efforts" to look out for the files that have by far remained untraced. The documents would have to be opened to Singh, for inspection, within 20 days.
       
       
       
      Rare govt records missing at National Archives- Politics/Nation-News-The Economic Times
    • karira
      By karira
      As reported by Shyamlal Yadav in India Today on indiatoday.digital.in on 19 June 2008:
      India Today - The most widely read newsweekly in South Asia
       
      Open secret
       
      In the third week of May at a function to release the ‘Report to the People 2008’ on the UPA Government’s completion of the fourth year in office, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh waxed eloquent about the achievements of his regime while laying special emphasis on its record in open government.
       
      “The UPA Government has set a new standard for accountability and transparency in governance,” he announced.
       
      The prime minister was only partially right since it was the UPA Government that had enacted the Right to Information (RTI) Act, which gave ordinary citizens the right to seek both information and accountability from their leaders.
       
      However, it is the actual implementation of open governance that remains a closely-guarded secret.
       
      On November 6, 2007, India Today invoked the RTI, seeking information from the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) whether Union ministers had filed details of their assets and liabilities.
       
      This followed reports that the prime minister was miffed after his ministers repeatedly ignored reminders from the Cabinet Secretariat to file these details.
       
      The ministers who showed utter disdain for the cabinet secretary’s reminders were from the Congress as well as from its alliance partners.


      Manmohan Singh (right) with senior colleagues
       
      The practice of asking all Union ministers to file details of assets and tax returns with the PMO every year was initiated by Atal Bihari Vajpayee after he took over as prime minister in 1999. Though the move met with initial resistance, especially from the BJP’s alliance partners, eventually most ministers fell in line.
       
      A system was also put in place to ensure that the process was adhered to.
      On taking the oath of office, every minister is handed a copy of the code of conduct. It says, among other things, that ministers should disclose to the PMO details of their assets, liabilities and business interests along with those of their family members.
       
      Manmohan, in the best interests of transparency, kept up the tradition.
      This magazine’s efforts to gather information of the ministers’ assets, liabilities and tax returns made it amply evident that most of the UPA ministers have scant regard for the prime minister’s lofty ideals.
       
      Our RTI application, sent to both the PMO and the Cabinet Secretariat, asked these specific questions: “Whether the prime minister has asked his cabinet/state ministers to file the details of their assets and liabilities annually; the exact date of such advice; reminders sent to the defaulters and the names of ministers who expressed their inability to file such details.”
       
      That is when we discovered that the openness which Manmohan talked about is mostly a farce and the bureaucrats and politicians were doing what they were best at—passing the buck.
       
      On November 19, 2007, 10 days after the RTI application was filed, the PMO responded saying that the “Cabinet Secretariat dealt with the matter and you are advised to contact the Central public information officer, Cabinet Secretariat, for further information in the matter.”
       

      Buck - passing


       

      “You are advised to contact the CPIO, Cabinet Secretariat for further information in the matter.”
      Response from PMO dated November 19, 2007
      “The information asked for pertains to the PMO and the Cabinet Secretariat is not directly connected with the subject matter.”
      Response from Cab Sec dated November 26, 2007
      “The matter is under consideration and information will be sent to you in due course.”
      Response from Cab Sec on December 24, 2007

      Shockingly enough, a week later, the secretariat responded to the initial application stating that the “information asked for pertains to the Prime Minister’s Office and the Cabinet Secretariat is not directly concerned with the subject matter.
       
      This secretariat… has transferred your request to the Prime Minister’s Office, South Block… for appropriate action.”
       
      The two offices are situated just a stone’s throw from each other. But for any one trying to do business with either, they couldn’t be further apart.
       
      The replies that were received from each office were sent to the other following which the secretariat wrote on December 24 that “the matter is under consideration of the competent authority and the information/reply will be sent to you in due course.”
       
      Nothing happened for nearly two months. On February 1, we sent a reminder to the secretariat requesting it to forward the information as soon as possible. A copy of this letter was endorsed to the appellate authority as well. A second reminder was sent on March 7.
       
      When that too went unanswered, a third reminder was sent asking if there was a “stipulated time frame to reply to such requests”.
       
      Nearly four months had elapsed, though under the RTI Act it is mandatory to reply to queries within a month.
       
      The next door to be knocked on was that of the Central Information Commission (CIC), which oversees the implementation of the RTI Act.
       
      On March 17, this magazine wrote to the CIC saying that both the PMO and the Cabinet Secretariat have been indulging in buck-passing and not replying to repeated queries raised under the RTI.
       
      “Such an attitude will defeat the very purpose of the RTI Act. When high offices like the PMO and the Cabinet Secretariat show such an approach, it can only be deduced how the lower-level offices will deal with requests to RTI applications,” we wrote to the CIC.
       
      There is no reply forthcoming from the CIC either, which gives the feeling that it would be foolish to expect the queries to be answered during the tenure of this government.
       
      The prime minister’s brave words about the declaration of assets by ministers is just words and nothing else.
       
      The Representation of the People Act was amended in 2004 to make it compulsory for all legislators to declare their assets and liabilities within 90 days of being elected. Strangely, there is no such provision for ministers.
       
      That ministers treat with contempt directives from the PMO—issued via the Cabinet Secretariat seeking annual declaration of assets—is indicative of the sheer helplessness of the PMO in a coalition setup where every partner, even a minor one, is a major bully.
       
      If this is the actual level of transparency at the highest levels where leaders are expected to be more accountable, the less said the better about politics and those who practise it at the lower levels.

Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy