Jump to content
  • 0
aparna_world

may i can file direct first appeal

Question

aparna_world

Hello,

 

I had earlier filed RTI in family court Mumbai then as per reply I had filed First appeal to Principle Judge family court, and as per suggest by the Judge I had withdrawn that appeal. This matter was closed in February . Now again I want to file RTI , may I can file direct first appeal to Principle judge ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
MANOJ B. PATEL

Dear member,

 

Kindly tell which information do you want from court?

 

You have to file RTI application first.

 

An applicant seeks information from PIO of that Public Authority in writing and the focus must be on that information, and he need not contact any body or follow up the matter further.

Appellant is entitled information within 30 days from receipt of RTI Application in writing from the PIO with whom the applicant reached.

If information is not received within 30 days, applicant has to file first appeal before First Appellate Authority of same Public Authority- against PIO for deemed denial. or applicant can file first appeal to the concerned authority whose name,address was provided by PIO in his denial letter/information provided letter...if the information provided by last PIO is not relevant, incomplete, incorrect or unsatisfactory to appellant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
RAVEENA_O
Hello,

 

I had earlier filed RTI in family court Mumbai then as per reply I had filed First appeal to Principle Judge family court, and as per suggest by the Judge I had withdrawn that appeal. This matter was closed in February . Now again I want to file RTI , may I can file direct first appeal to Principle judge ?

 

You cannot file first appeal directly to the First Appellate Authority. You must file RTI Application with PIO concerned and seek informtion. If the PIO do not supply information or not responded to the RTI application or not satisfied with reply or information supplied, you can file First Appeal to First Appellate Authority (FAA), within 30 days from date of receipt of PIO's reply. If you are not satisfied with the decision of FAA or if FAA do not decide your appeal within 30 days (or maximum 45 days) you can file Second Appeal before Information Commission.

 

For guidance in writing and submitting RTI Applications, please refer to:

 

HOW TO WRITE RTI APPLICATION

GUIDE IN WRITING GOOD RTI APPLICATION

SUBMIT RTI APPLICATION

RTI TIME SCHEDULE.

CENTRAL / STATE RTI RULES - GUIDE

 

For guidance in writing and submitting First Appeal, please refer to:

 

HOW TO FILE FIRST APPEAL

FIRST APPEAL FOR NO REPLY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Prasad GLN

Simple one sentence Reply: As a citizen you can file application before Public information officer at any time on any issue. PIO has to provide information or deny information stating exemption and justification within 30 days from receipt of application.

If PIO fails to provide the information appeal can be made to First appellate authority and if not satisfied with FAA orders citizen can file second appeal before Commission.

RTI Act never stipulated as to number of RTI Applications that can be filed and when to be filed by citizens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Sunil Ahya

Please note that in the earlier case you had not filed your first appeal before the Principal Judge but you had filed your first appeal with the First Appellate Authority under the RTI Act, 2005 who happens to be a person designated as a Principal Judge.

 

> A RTI application has to be always filed under section 6(1) with a Public Information Officer (PIO),

 

> And then if you are not satisfied with the response / information provided by the PIO, you need to file a First Appeal under section 19(1) before the concerned First Appellate Authority (FAA),

 

> And likewise if you are not satisfied with the response of FAA then you need to file a Second Appeal under section 19(3) before an Information Commission.

 

 

> Please refer to the following links to learn more about it:

RTI Act offers three levels to obtain a required information.

 

Flow of a RTI application, once having been filed.

 

Time limits under which I will get the information.

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