Jump to content
News Ticker
  • NPAs under PM Modi's Mudra scheme jumped 126% in FY19
  • shows RTI
  • RTI query reveals banking frauds of ₹ 2.05 Trillion reported in the last 11 years
  • 509 per cent rise in cases under child labour law: Study
  • The Central Information Commission has allowed disclosure of file notings on the mercy petition of a rape and murder convict, rejecting the government's contention that the records cannot be disclosed as these are privileged documents under Article 74(2) of the Constitution.
  • Electoral bonds worth over ₹5,800 crore were bought by donors to fund political parties between March 1, 2018 and May 10, 2019, a Right to Information reply has said.
  • Don't pay 500/- for answer sheet now- Supreme Court says if Answer sheet is asked under RTI, RTI Fees will be governed
  • 0

roles and responsibilities of the Deputy Commissioner of Rewari





I have filed an RTI to get the roles and responsibilities of the Deputy Commissioner of Rewari. All the papers are attached herewith. Would request the team members and the Seniors of the forum - RTIINDIA.ORG to please guide me to get myself ready for the hearing of the Second Appeal.



Rajender Soni


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

Go through the file and remember on which points info has been supplied and on which points the same has been denied. Do not panic but refer to the file if you need to answer any query from SIC. There is nothing to fear as the whole hearing may not take more than two minutes. Good Luck.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Prasad GLN

First prepare a written argument point by point in tabulated form and immediately after hearing is over you may submit the same in person to IC.


Use tabulation for easy reference point wise.


Information solicited on.................Information provided by PIO..........Reasons for



disagreement..Violation of the Section.....Reference if any of decision./Court judgment


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0



Please help, this was my first hearing and that too was against the Deputy Commissioner, I don't have any support else than RTIINDIA.org.


As suggested by G.L.N Prasad sir, I have prepare a rough draft of my argument point to be handed over the State Information Commissioner after the hearing, Please help in finalizing the same.


Subject : Case No. 3904/2014, Notice under Secction 19(3) of the RTI Act 2005, Sh. Rajender Soni, R/o H.No-92A, Qutabpur, Rewari, v/s 1st Appellate Authority cum Deputy Commissioner, Rewari & SPIO cum City Magistrate, Rewari




Please refer the notice under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act vide reference number-7021/SIC/2014/5-1A dated 16 May 2014.


1. That the Applicant has submitted a RTI application in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Rewari on 08 Nov 2013.


2. That the Applicant has received information vide reference number 3051 dated 11 Dec 2013.


3. That the Applicant has submitted a First Appeal under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act 2005 against the PIO that the information provided was not satisfactory / incomplete and proper action as per the RTI Act – 2005 was not taken by the Public Information Officer on 27 Dec 2013. Brief of First Appeal are as follows:


a. Point no. 1 of the RTI application – Violation of Section 6(3) of the RTI Act-2005.

b. Point no. 2,5,7,8,9 of the RTI Application – satisfied with the information.

c. Point no. 3,4,6 – information provided was not satisfactory / incomplete.


4. That the Applicant received an notice/order from the FAA office vide reference number 3537 dated 17 Jan 2014 informing that the hearing for the First Appeal was scheduled on 29 Jan 2014.


5. The Applicant submitted an application in the office of FAA showing his inability to attend the hearing and requesting the FAA to decide the Appeal based on merit by email on 25 Jan 2014.


6. The Applicant submitted an application in the office of FAA showing his inability to attend the hearing and requesting the FAA to decide the Appeal based on merit on 30 Jan 2014.


7. The Applicant also submitted an application in the office of FAA showing his inability to attend the hearing and requesting the FAA to decide the Appeal based on merit by email on 11 Feb 2014.


8. The Applicant has submitted an application in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Rewari on 14 Mar 2014 that he was unable to contact the PIO cum City Magistrate, Rewari, requesting the Deputy Commissioner being the FAA under the RTI Act-2005 to help him by providing the contact details of the PIO and his availability.


9. The Applicant was shocked by the rejoinder submitted by FAA cum Deputy Commissioner, Rewari to the Hon’ble State Information Commissioner, Chandigarh, where, the FAA has mentioned that the Appeal was decided on 25 Feb 2014 and the Applicant was informed vide reference number – 4456-57 dated 10 Mar 2014.


10. That the First Appeal was submitted in the office of FAA cum Deputy Commissioner, Rewari on 27 Dec 2013 and the FAA has intimated vide rejoinder dated 3 June 2014 dated 5744, that the First appeal was decided on 25 Feb 2014 and the information was sent to the Applicant vide reference number 4456-57/RTI dated 10 Mar 2014.


11. The Applicant would like to inform that there is a clear violation of Section 19(6) of the RTI Act-2005.


Section 19(6) of the RTI Act-2005 –

An appeal under sub section (1) or sub section (2) shall be disposed of within thirty days of the receipt of the appeal or within such extended period not exceeding a total of forty five days from the date of filing thereof, as the case may be, for reasons to be recorded in writing.


12. The Hon’ble State Information Commissioner is requested to kindly refer the information provided by the PIO vide reference number3051 dated 11 Dec 2013 where for the point no-1 of the RTI application, the PIO has informed that the required information is not available in the office. – The PIO has violated the Section 6(3) of the RTI Act 2005.


The required information falls under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act-2005.


13. That the PIO has knowingly given incomplete or misleading information .


14. Violation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act 2005 - That the Applicant has requested the PIO to provide the information in English language only, whereas the information provided was in Hindi language.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Prasad GLN

Use simple format, economize each word. restrict to A 4 size. focus on relevant issue alone.

You may use sample format. If Hearing date notice was received file one copy in advance and utilise personal hearing to the maximum extent and confine to disagreed points only during hearin.

Before Hon. Information Commissioner,....................Commission,

Hearing in File No........................................On...................................

Written Arguments dt..................filed by Appellant:..............................................

against Public Authority. ................................................

Information solicited on............I Provided by PIO...Disagreement with PIO (Grounds for appeal)








Prayer:Appellant humbly prays for considering the arguments in third column as disagreement and direct PIO to provide information as expeditiously as possible and prays for imposing penalty and punishment against PIO as Hon.IC may deem fit for violations.


Dt........ Appellant.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Dear Team,


I would like to thanks the RTIINDIA.ORG team for providing me the support to attend the hearing of the Second appeal. The hearing was scheduled yesterday in Rewari, Haryana. I need your suggestions on few points mentioned below:


As per Section 19(6) of the RTI act, the first appeal should be decided within 30 days, or maximum of 45 days with the reasons to be mentioned by the FAA, but in my case the FAA has take more than 60 days in deciding the first appeal. I have asked the SIC to penalize him, but the SIC replies that he can't penalize him on 19(6), as there are no instructions / reference / leading cases where the PIO/FAA was penalized or some other action was taken against him for violation of Section 19(6).


I would request the forum to please suggest or provide me the copy of any judgment where the court/SIC has penalized for the violation of Section 19(6).



Rajender Soni

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Prasad GLN

RTI Act mentions of obligation on part of PIO alone. This topic of penalising FAA was discussed in several cases. In Madras High Court case Known as LIC LIFT case the strictures passed by CIC were expunged by HC and Hon.Judge has categorically stated that there is no provision in RTI Act against FAA's violation.

This is a lacuna in RTI Act and now there is uproar to add FAA also for penalty and punishment in case of further amendments to RTI Act.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

But the complainant/appellant can certainly pray to the SIC/CIC to send a copy of the order to the superior officer / evaluating officer of the FAA. The SIC/CIC can also require/recommend to the PA to change the FA - under Sec 19(8)(a) and Sec 25(5).


Sec 19(8):


19(8) In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to—

(a) require the public authority to take any such steps as may be necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of this Act, including


One of the provisions of the Act is Sec 19(6) and in this case, it is definitely not being complied with.


If the SIC/CIC refuses to mark a copy to the superior officer of the FAA, the complainant/appellant can himself send a copy to the superior officer, with a covering note.

After a reasonable time, file a RTI with the office of the superior officer and find out what action was taken on the CIC/SIC (or your) letter.

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.

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

    • garg0505
      By garg0505
      On 14.03.2018 a complaint was filed under RTI Act,2005 with CIC under section 20(1), on the grounds that the CPIO did not provide the information despite the orders of FAA.
      During the hearing the respondent CPIO of PMO office submitted that information had been provided to complainant vide letter dated 01.03.2018 through speed post.
      Whereas, the information wasn't received by me and after having hearing submission of both the parties and persuing the records the commission directs the respondent to resend the letter dated 01.03.2018 alongwith the proof of its dispatch including tracking number to the complainant within two weeks. Furthermore my complaint have been disposed of.
      The CPIO of PMO has coplience the orders of CIC and now I received the information alongwith proof of dispatch on 05.07.2019.
      Since the copy of reply furnished by CPIO of PMO is unprincipled and immature, & very much fishy. Therefore, expert advice is needed on the following issues
      1. Can I still file my appeal against the reply of CPIO of PMO in the event of disposed of my complaint in CIC orders.
      For your convenience I am enclosing the CIC orders.
      .CIC Order on PMO CPIO
    • Shrawan
      By Shrawan
      Central Information Commission

      Decision No.285/IC(A)/2006
      F. No.CIC/MA/A/2006/00653
      Dated, the 20th September, 2006

      Name of the Appellant : Sh. Pradipta Dutta, B-141 Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi – 110 019
      Name of the Public Authority: Directorate of Income Tax (Legal & Research) (DIT), 3rd floor, Drumshaped Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi- 110 002. DECISION
      Facts of the Case:
      The appellant had sought certain information in the form of queries, whichhave been duly responded by the CPIO and the appellate authority as well. Hehas however filed an appeal before the Commission against the reply of theappellate authority and prayed that the CPIO of DIT (L&R) be directed to furnishinformation with respect to his following queries:
      “Kindly inform why ITOs have been posted at DIT (L&R) even though there is no corresponding post in the same pay-scale at ITJSection, CBDT. What functions are the ITOs expected to discharge at DIT (L&R)?
      Kindly inform why ITOs at DIT (L&R) are being forced, under threat of disciplinary action, to perform the functions of an Asstt.Commissioner without being paid officiating pay.”
      Commission’s Decision:
      In its oft-repeated decisions, the Commission has advised the informationseekers that they ought not seek the views and comments of the CPIO on the questions asked by them. Yet, in the garb of seeking information mainly for redressal of their grievances, applications from requesters are filed. The CPIO’s in turn, have also ventured to answer them. Thus, the information seekers as providers have erred in interpreting the definition of information.
      A CPIO of any public authority is not expected to create and generate a fresh, an information because it has been sought by an appellant. The appellant is, therefore, advised to specify the required information, which may be provided, if it exists, in the form in which it is sought by him.
      The information sought relate to duties and responsibilities of ITOs deployed at different locations and the salary or compensation paid to them.Under Section 4(1) of the Act, all the public authorities are required to disclose such information as above. Had it been done by the respondent, the CPIO could have informed the applicant about the source where from he could have obtained the information. The need for filing application for information and this appeal could have thus been avoided. In pursuance of the principle of maximum disclosure, as u/s 4(1) of the Act, the CPIO is directed to disseminate the information so that in future, such applications are minimized.
      The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

      (Prof. M.M. Ansari)
      Information Commissioner
      Download the Decision from Download segment.



  • Create New...

Important Information

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