Jump to content
  • 0
SantoshDevrayakamath

Time Limit for second appeal

Question

SantoshDevrayakamath

Hello,

I had requsted for information from BPCL under RTI act dated CPIO/SPIO : 14th October 2014.

 

To FAA : 16th December 2014.

None of them replied .

time frame for second appeal is 90 days . is it possible to go for second appeal after time frame or again i have to give fresh request.

thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
debaprasad92

You have to file a fresh rti application. If you have any powerful cause for not filing 2nd appeal within time, then go for 2nd appeal. Who knows your appeal would be accepted or rejected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
D.T.RATHAVA

RESPECTED SIR,

first file second appeal and do fresh RTI go to parallel no any loose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
RAVEENA_O

In this case, the PIO as well as the FAA has not responded to the RTI Request and First Appeal till date. Since they themselves have not followed the limitation specified under the RTI Act, they cannot object to the delay in filing Second Appeal.

 

Please file Second Appeal and add a small para that you were expecting the FAA to decide the First Appeal and thereafter you were not ill and could not file second appeal in time and hence the delay may kindly be condoned.

 

Also file a complaint simultaneously under section-18 of the Act for not responding to the RTI Request as well as the First Appeal.

 

Also file fresh RTI Application and seek the same information from the PIO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
karira
In this case, the PIO as well as the FAA has not responded to the RTI Request and First Appeal till date. Since they themselves have not followed the limitation specified under the RTI Act, they cannot object to the delay in filing Second Appeal.

 

Objection will not come from the PIO/FAA but the Registry of the CIC itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Prasad GLN

Hence file complaint to CIC and fresh RTI to CPIO also but never expect any remedy from CIC against BPCL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
RAVEENA_O

Appeal include pleading for condonation of delay, which the IC is required to adjudicate first. The registrar has no power and authority to decide the issue of delay. IC is required to record such reasons why the contention of illness of appellant is not acceptable. But even then the IC reject the application on limitation ground, it may only be bad luck. Generally such action is taken only when condonation of delay is contested by PIO.

 

Filing of complaint is another option, but as of now, the relief of supply of information cannot be sought under the proceedings under section-18.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
MANOJ B. PATEL

Delay is for 5 days only. I agree with R/ Madam and second appeal should be filed with a humble request to condone delay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
karira
Appeal include pleading for condonation of delay, which the IC is required to adjudicate first. The registrar has no power and authority to decide the issue of delay. IC is required to record such reasons why the contention of illness of appellant is not acceptable. But even then the IC reject the application on limitation ground, it may only be bad luck. Generally such action is taken only when condonation of delay is contested by PIO.

 

Filing of complaint is another option, but as of now, the relief of supply of information cannot be sought under the proceedings under section-18.

 

You are absolutely correct, as far as "theory" is concerned.

 

Practice is something entirely different.

 

One of my second appeals was rejected and sent back recently (Dec 2014) by the CIC on the grounds that it was time barred. Luckily I was in Delhi only for a day in beginning January and took time off to visit A K Bhawan. Spoke to the Registrar himself and he summoned the girl who had scrutinized and sent my second appeal back.

 

This was the girls explanation:

 

(I cannot reproduce her exact English - because it was very confusing):

 

Girl: "I calculated time limit for second appeal as 150 days"

Me: "Where did you get the 150 days from ? There is no such mention in the RTI Act"

Girl: "30 days for PIO to reply, 30 days for you to file first appeal and 90 days for you to file second appeal - total 150 days"

Girl: "So if your second appeal is after 150 days of the date of RTI application, it is time barred"

Me: "Madam, who told you this OR where did you learn this from ?"

Girl: "I was informed during training"

 

I literally lowered my head, banged it against the edge of the table and told her : "Thank you Madam, you can go back to your work now".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Prasad GLN

Hon. Karira, Kindly do not repeat banging head next time, as some IC may file complaint to police that you are breaking their tables and riotous in your behaviour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
karira
Hon. Karira, Kindly do not repeat banging head next time, as some IC may file complaint to police that you are breaking their tables and riotous in your behaviour.

 

This was not in front of the IC, but in front of the Registrar of CIC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
RAVEENA_O

The commission follows the wrong procedure. Nobody challenge their action, but that cannot be construed as total acquiescence of the wrong action.

 

The commission is required to discharge its duty in accordance with the procedure laid down by the Appropriate Government in that regard. The Registrar can return the appeal only for the reasons of Rule-9 of the Central RTI Rules, 2012. Else, the Commission should decide it.

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

    • 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.

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


       

    • Shrawan
      By Shrawan
      Central Information Commission


       

      Decision No.286/IC(A)/2006
      F. No.CIC/MA/A/2006/00453
       
      Dated, the 20th September, 2006


       

      Name of the Appellant : Sh. N. Anbarasan, APPLESOFT, #39,1st, Cross, 1st Main, Shivnagar, W.C. Road,Bangalore – 560 010.
      Name of the Public Authority: Indian Overseas Bank, Central Office, Customer Service Department, P.B.No.3765, 763, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.
       
      DECISION
       
      Facts of the Case:
       

      The appellant had sought the following information from the CPIO of the Indian Overseas Bank:
      “Request/invitation for proposal/quotation, Quotations, Technical bid, Commercial bid submitted by various language software (like Hind isoftware, Tamil software etc.) suppliers related to supply of software to all the Head/corporate offices and sub-ordinate offices/branches.
      Purchase Order/Supply Order placed on various language software suppliers related to supply of software.
      Request/invitation for proposal/quotation, Quotations, Technical bid, Commercial bid submitted by various vendors/dealers related to purchase of computers like PC, Server, Thin client etc. to the Head/Corporate offices and sub-ordinate offices/branches. Minutes/proceedings of the various committees involved in the
      purchase of software/hardware.
      Delivery Challans, Bills/Invoice, orders passed to make the payment, letter of sanction etc. related to purchase of computers like PC, Server, Thin client etc. to the sub-ordinate offices/branches.”
      [*]In his reply, the CPIO informed that information sought is: “Exempted under Section 8(1)(d) of the Act as the information falls under “commercial confidence” and “Trade Secrets” which would harm the competitive position of the third parties and the larger public interest does not warrant such disclosure.”
      [*]The appellate authority has upheld the decision of the CPIO.

      Commission’s Decision
       

      In a recent decision of the Commission, the following was observed: (Decision No.216 dated 31st August 2006):
      “Transparency in functioning of public authorities is expected to be ensured through the exercise of right to know, so that a citizen can scrutinize the fairness and objectivity of every public action. This objective cannot be achieved unless the information that is created and generated by public bodies is disclosed in the form in which it exists with them.
      Therefore, an information is to be provided in the form in which it is sought, u/s 7(9) of the Act. And, if it does not exist in the form in which it is asked for and provided to the applicant, there is no way that proper scrutiny of public action could be made to determine any deviations from the established practices or accepted policies.”
      In view of this, the information sought relate to the public action with regard to the processes that have been followed in purchase of computers and other accessories. Such actions clearly fall under the public domain and therefore exemption claimed u/s 8(1)(d) is not justified.
      The CPIO is, therefore, directed to furnish the information sought within 15 working days from the issue of this decision. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
       


      Sd/-
      (Prof. M.M. Ansari)
      Information Commissioner


Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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