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
vkgarg

Since F A A authority not issued any order thereof D

Question

vkgarg

Sir,

After having not received the reply from PIO of New Delhi Municipal Council New Delhi, with in stipulated period of 35 days I filled a First Appeal with Director Fiananc as per attached first Appeal. On receipt of my 1st appeal Director Fiananc called me for hearing and accordingly I attended the same.

During the proceedings PIO told the FAA that they have not received the application. I submitted before FAA that my RTI was duly received.

Accordingly FAA told PIO that you put up details and I was told by FAA that reply shall be sent to you.

No proceedings note was prepared by FAA and got signed by PIO/Myself.

Now a reply has been received by me from PIO and No ID reference is given, further the information contained in reply as asked by me not in order.

Therefore should I filled 2nd Appeal with CIC and some suitable drafting for the appeal may be suggested as per my First Appeal and reply received.

Thanks

orca-image-1516686519557.jpg_1516686519701.jpg

orca-image-1516686488609.jpg_1516686488790.jpg

orca-image-1516686465949.jpg_1516686466073.jpg

orca-image-1516686345583.jpg_1516686345752.jpg

orca-image-1516686390048.jpg_1516686390255.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
vkgarg

Sir,

After having not received the reply from PIO of New Delhi Municipal Council New Delhi, with in stipulated period of 35 days I filled a First Appeal with Director Fiananc as per attached first Appeal. On receipt of my 1st Director Fiananc called me a hearing and accordingly I attended the same.

During the proceedings PIO told the FAA that they have not received the application. I submitted before FAA that my RTI was duly received.

Accordingly FAA told PIO you put up details and I was told that reply shall be sent to you.

No proceedings not was prepared by FAA and got signed by PIO/Myself.

Now a reply has been received by me from PIO and No ID reference is given however the information contained is replied as asked by me.

Therefore should I filled 2nd Appeal with CIC and some suitable drafting for the appeal may be suggested as per my First Appeal and reply received.

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Prasad GLN

Answer only one point.

You have stated..however the information contained is replied as asked by me.

.

Then forget all these and be happy, as you are successful.

 

Then what is this query is not known

 

Therefore should I filled 2nd Appeal with CIC and some suitable drafting for the appeal may be suggested as per my First Appeal and reply received.

 

A citizen is only concerned with information. Even if you go for appeals/complaints it is a mere wastage of time for you , for PIO and for CIC. Remember per each second appeal Govt spends minimum of Rs.2,500/- ten years back. I have never heard IC taking action against PIO, even when information was provided. At the most he may comment or record passing remark ...not more than this. Some ICs even abuse applicants for wasting their time on frivolous appeals.

Decision is yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Prasad GLN

Members of the forum are not experts in cryptic reading like Police or robots.

You have made two posts. Both contain different information with image printing, which is very hard to read.

Provide precise information, as to whether you have received the information as required by you or not ?

If not provide the query and reply given by PIO for proper guidance and specifically state as to whether you have received FAA orders or not.

If you have not received FAA orders and if you are not satisfied with PIO information, still the doors of FAA are open to you.

You can file another Addendum to first appeal stating the grounds on which information provided by PIO is not satisfactory.

Do not think, that just by going for second appeal, officials shiver and provide the information running to your house.

You have to wait for minimum 2 years and it is not certain whether that information helps you or IC grants your prayers or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Sunil Ahya
Now a reply has been received by me from PIO and No ID reference is given however the information contained is replied as asked by me. Therefore should I filled 2nd Appeal with CIC

 

Have you received the requested information?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
vkgarg

[[ATTACH=CONFIG]15563[/ATTACH

The reply furnish not in order.As PIO inform me that no such orders have been received in CBS branch. In such circumstances PIO was supposed to transfer the my RTI application to authority who has issued me this order under intimation of transfer the application.As the NDMC is one authority.

orca-image-1516686519557.jpg_1516686519701.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Sunil Ahya

You can do two things simultaneously:

 

1. File a first appeal with the concerned First Appellate Authority on the following ground:

 

The PIO has informed that the information is not available with his Office which by a reasonable inference means that the requested information is available with another Department of your public authority.

 

I would hereby like to draw your Hon'ble Authority's kind attention to the provision of section 5(4) read with section 5(5) of the RTI Act, 2005, whereby:

 

- As per section 5(4), if the information is not available with the PIO's Office, nevertheless, it is available within his Public Authority then, the PIO is supposed to seek assistance of other officer as he or she considers necessary for proper discharge of his duties and thereby access the information from that other Office and provide it to a RTI applicant, and

- As per section 5(5), for the purpose of any contraventions of the provisions of RTI Act, such other Officer shall be treated as the PIO.

 

Therefore, given the provision of section 5(4) read with section 5(5) the PIO was supposed to have sought assistance of the Officer in whose custody the information vide this RTI application, was available.

 

In this regard, please also find the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CPIO Supreme Court v/s. Subhash Chandra Agarwal & Anr., the relevant except of which has been quoted below and is self explanatory:

 

Quote:

Para 23. In view of this, the question of transferring an application under Section 6(3) of the Right to Information Act by the CPIO of the Supreme Court cannot arise. It is the duty of the CPIO to obtain the information that is held by or available with the public authority. Each of the sections or department of a public Authority cannot be treated as a separate or distinct public authority. If any information is available with one section or the department, it shall be deemed to be available with the Public Authority as one single entity CPIO cannot take a view contrary to this.

Unquote

 

Thus, the PIO has disposed of the RTI application in violation of section 5(4) read with section 5(5) of the RTI Act.

 

2. At the same time, to avoid delays you also file a fresh RTI application with the PIO with whom the requested information is likely available.

 

Thus, you can do both the above steps simultaneously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
vkgarg

Thanks sir for effective and valuable advice.

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.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


    • 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.


       

Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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