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
swarup_fci

Whether First Appeal is mandatory?

Question

swarup_fci

Whether First Appeal is must?

 

I have not been given the name and designation of first appellate authority by the CPIO despite specifically asked for it, in my RTI apllication. I have subsequently submitted a rejoinder to the CPIO stating that, since no first appellate authority has been mentioned in his reply I have no option but to appeal directly to the CIC and again requested to provide the information asked, which was not provided properly earlier, within stipulated time as per the Act. But no reply is received till date.

 

My question is: under this circumstance, can I make direct appeal to CIC or first appeal is mandatory?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
rajub

Do you know any officer higher in rank than the PIO? If so you can file first appeal to him/her.

 

Do you at least know the head of the PA? If so you can file first appeal to him/her.

 

In all probability the appeal sent directly to CIC will be transfered to the head of the PA. There is no harm if this transfer happens immediately. But what if this transfer happens after 12 to 15 months?

 

So I would suggest find out the head of the PA and file first appeal to him.

 

If you cannot find out the head of the PA you may address the first appeal to head of the PA and post it to PIO with request to forward it to the head of PA. Please make a mention in the body of the appeal itself that this appeal is submitted to PIO with request to forward it to the head of PA.

 

Wait for 45 days for the reply and then file second appeal to CIC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
sandeepbaheti

You have the following options, listed in order of priority:

 

1) Search the website of the concerned PA. Ideally this information would be mentioned there.

2) Try visiting/ calling up the office to ask for the details of the AA.

3) Address your first appeal as:

To

Appellate Authority under RTI Act

c/o Head of Department

 

4) Send your first appeal to the head of that department, with a request to consider the appeal or transfer it to the appropriate officer. Also mark a copy of the appeal to PIO and add a note that since PIO was required to inform the details of AA and he has not done that, it is now the PIO's duty to forward the appeal to AA.

 

Do not appeal directly to CIC. In all probabilities the appeal will be returned with a direction to approach the FAA, that too after 7-8 months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
swarup_fci

Thanks to Rajub and sandeepbaheti. valuable suggestion indeed.

I would act accordingly. Thanks again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
karira

Besides all the suggestions given by Rajendra and Sandeep, you can also submit your First Appeal (or Second Appeal/Complaints also) to the APIO.

 

As per Sec 5(2) of the RTI Act:

 

2. Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), every public authority shall designate an officer, within one hundred days of the enactment of this Act, at each sub-divisional level or other sub-district level as a Central Assistant Public Information Officer or a State Assistant Public Information Officer, as the case may be, to receive the applications for information or appeals under this Act for forwarding the same forthwith to the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or senior officer specified under sub-section (1) of section 19 or the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be:

Provided that where an application for information or appeal is given to a Central Assistant Public Information Officer or a State Assistant Public Information Officer, as the case may be, a period of five days shall be added in computing the period for response specified under sub-section (1) of section 7.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
RAVEENA_O

First Appeal is mandatory. You have to exhaust the legally available alternate remedy before approaching CIC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
swarup_fci

Thanks Karira Sir,

I've another small query.

Is there any difference between appeal and complaints?

I've definite proof that I've been given false information to my queries by the CPIO, besides some of the answers being incomplete and misleading. So will it be an appeal or a complaint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
karira

A complaint under Sec 18 can only be made directly to the CIC/SIC.

The process for appeal has to follow Sec 19(1) for First Appeal and if still aggrieved, a Second Appeal under Sec 19(3) to the CIC/SIC.

 

You can make a direct complaint to the CIC under Sec 18(1)(e) of the RTI Act.

 

However, it is always better to exhaust the route of First Appeal under Sec 19(1) , before you go to the CIC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
rajub

You can file second appeal u/s 19(3) and complaint u/s 18 in one application.

 

The first page (title or heading page) should mention appeal cum complaint.

 

Shri Karira has uploaded a speciman proforma of "second appeal cum complaint" in the thread "my first ever second appeal" started by me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
vaidya.keshav

@ swarup_fci

 

I reproduce here below a reply received from APIC which is self explanatory!

On scrutiny it is observed that the Appellant has not exhausted the provision of filing

1st appeal available u/s 19(1) of the RTI Act and also did not attest the enclosures as required

under Rule 4(1) of the Appeal Procedure Rules issued in GOMs.No.66, GA(I&PR-II)Dept.,

dated 25-02-2006.

 

The Hon’ble High Court of A.P., through orders in WP Nos.13902 of 2007 dated 02-07-2007,

WP No.5086 of 2008 dated 11-3-2008 and WP No.27825 of 2008 dated 3-12-2008 held that it is necessary for the applicants to exhaust the remedies provided u/s 19(1) & 19(3) of the RTI Act, 2005; and dismissed the writ petitions as the writ petitioners in those cases did not exhaust the provision of 1st appeal u/s 19(1) and 2nd appeal u/s 19(3).

 

Hence it is mandatory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
ranjan1

My view is

 

Complaint u/s 18 is possible ( as incomplete - incorrect reply from PIO is well proven ) this will also not violate any provision of RTI Act

 

Regarding appeal why not file First appeal at the same address of PIO ( PIO can forward the appeal to appropriate officer )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
karira
@ swarup_fci

 

I reproduce here below a reply received from APIC which is self explanatory!

On scrutiny it is observed that the Appellant has not exhausted the provision of filing

1st appeal available u/s 19(1) of the RTI Act and also did not attest the enclosures as required

under Rule 4(1) of the Appeal Procedure Rules issued in GOMs.No.66, GA(I&PR-II)Dept.,

dated 25-02-2006.

 

The Hon’ble High Court of A.P., through orders in WP Nos.13902 of 2007 dated 02-07-2007,

WP No.5086 of 2008 dated 11-3-2008 and WP No.27825 of 2008 dated 3-12-2008 held that it is necessary for the applicants to exhaust the remedies provided u/s 19(1) & 19(3) of the RTI Act, 2005; and dismissed the writ petitions as the writ petitioners in those cases did not exhaust the provision of 1st appeal u/s 19(1) and 2nd appeal u/s 19(3).

 

Hence it is mandatory

 

What were the grounds of Complaint that you made to APIC ?

What was the date of the above letter from APIC ?

On what date was your Complaint filed under Sec 18 with the APIC

 

Sec 18 and Sec 19 provide alternative means of approaching the Information Commission

One can approach the SIC/CIC under Sec 18, if any of the conditions laid down under Sec 18(1)(a) to (e) are met.

 

Please see this order from APIC itself (by the way, the said Complaint was against the PIO of APIC !):

 

https://www.rtiindia.org/forum/55505-direct-complaints-under-sec-18-must-admitted-heard-inquired-into-state-information-commission.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Dr. M. Faiyazuddin
A complaint under Sec 18 can only be made directly to the CIC/SIC.

The process for appeal has to follow Sec 19(1) for First Appeal and if still aggrieved, a Second Appeal under Sec 19(3) to the CIC/SIC.

 

You can make a direct complaint to the CIC under Sec 18(1)(e) of the RTI Act.

 

 

 

However, it is always better to exhaust the route of First Appeal under Sec 19(1) , before you go to the CIC.

 

Is it 18(1)C or 18(!)e ? Please see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
karira

I've definite proof that I've been given false information to my queries by the CPIO, besides some of the answers being incomplete and misleading. So will it be an appeal or a complaint.

 

Is it 18(1)C or 18(!)e ? Please see.

 

For Incomplete, Incorrect and Misleading information, it will be 18(1)(e).

 

18.1.e. who believes that he or she has been given incomplete, misleading or false information under this Act; and

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