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
Ajit Borade

I won my first RTI appeal. What NEXT ?

Question

Ajit Borade

Hi, i recently filed a dozen of rti applications to charity commsioner Osmanabad, 6 applications to Passport office Pune, 4 applications to post office pune, 4 applications to SBI bank etc. I have developed a special penchant for filing multiple applications.

And I am preparing for a long and gruelling battle against government machinery.

In one of my application, I asked the Pune head post office about the day wise figures of IPOs sold across the counter of each of the post office that falls under their jurisdiction. I reply, they said that this information is of the nature of TRADE SECRET ;) and therefore exempted. Hence they declined to provied the information. I appead to the Appleat Authority and they upheld my appeal and directed the CPIO to provide the aforesaid information to me after charging the requisite fees. Now the PIO has written to me asking me to deposit Rs. 1010/- towards 505 pages of information.

My Question is ===>

As the PIO had earlier denied information to me, and it is several days past the mandatory 30 days period to provide the information, am I not eligibe to get the said information free of cost ?

As per my understanding , there is certain clause in RTI act which says that information should be provided free of cost if it is delayed beyond 30 days period.

I invite suggestions from RTI comrades.

- Ajit

(Posting of mob. no. is against forum rules-hence deleted)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

19 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
jps50

Under sec 7 [6] of RTI Act you are entitled to information free of charge. Please again file first appeal for supply of information free of charge.

 

However, what is the intention of asking for such information. How it would be useful?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Atul Patankar

Has the PIO given detailed calculation as required under section 7(3)? If not, you can take this also up in your appeal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Ajit Borade

My intention is very prudent.

My RTI application was with reference to the shortfall and unavailability of IPOs across the post offices faced by RTI activists.

When you file RTI application by post, you need Rs. 10 IPO attached to it.

Whenever one approaches the post office for IPO they simply state that they don't keep IPOs for sell because they don't receive IPOs from their head office.

 

Had I asked the head office the reason of unavailability of IPOs and the number of such ocasions in say last one year, they simply would answer that there was no such unavailablity of IPOs across the post offices under their jurisdiction.( which they did to one of my query)

Therefore I am asking the number of IPOs they supplied to each of the post office under their jurisdiction, now they can't give us theoretical answer, they will have to provide us with the numbers and it will show zero figures for several days and for several post offices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Ajit Borade

PIO only stated that the information contains 505 pages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
karira

Firstly you should have prayed in the First Appeal that the FAA should have ordered for the information to be given free of charge as per Sec 7(6).

You will have to file another first appeal now , as suggested by jps50 above.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
colnrkurup

Ajit,

With no intention to mar your enthusiasm, may I suggest that you refrain from seeking information for the hack of it fully knowing that you or the society cannot make use of it commensurate with the effort of all concerned in providing it. Though in present case the PIO has no choice other than providing you the information free of charge under Section 7(6), I doubt whether you were willing to pay Rs.1010/- for the above information.

Please continue the good work with better objective

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Guest pcbali

Does not it not become, a review? there is no provision in act of filing an appeal second time. Is it? I think this is not available in civil litigation also. It means we can file a second appeal also second time if some one thinks that a new to be mandated is required. I may be wrong, dear Mr. Colnrkurup and Mr. Karira, just a detailed answer. Having a law point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Guest pcbali

I found that ICs voluntarily add in orders to supply the information free of cost, why had not been in this case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
karira
Does not it not become, a review? there is no provision in act of filing an appeal second time. Is it? I think this is not available in civil litigation also. It means we can file a second appeal also second time if some one thinks that a new to be mandated is required. I may be wrong, dear Mr. Colnrkurup and Mr. Karira, just a detailed answer. Having a law point.

 

Reproducing relevant part of Sec 19(1):

 

1. Any person who, does not receive a decision within the time specified in sub-section (1) or clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may within thirty days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of such a decision prefer an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer as the case may be, in each public authority:

 

A first appeal can be filed for any(every) decision or non-decision of the PIO.

The first FA was preferred against non supply of information.

This second FA will be preferred against the "unreasonable charges" being charged by the PIO.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Guest pcbali

Thanks, Mr. karira, the point is very clear. But does it confirm, that if IC give some orders and PIO make some ingenuine demand of any sort, we will file another 2nd appeal/complaint to the IC. Or we will just send an request letter to IC for redirecting PIO to do as the RTI act mandates. Say in this very case, if FAA declines the request, can the sufferer go to IC with this issue and it will be 2nd appeal in the same matter, is not it? And Registrar may reject the appeal to register.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
karira
Thanks, Mr. karira, the point is very clear. But does it confirm, that if IC give some orders and PIO make some ingenuine demand of any sort, we will file another 2nd appeal/complaint to the IC. Or we will just send an request letter to IC for redirecting PIO to do as the RTI act mandates. Say in this very case, if FAA declines the request, can the sufferer go to IC with this issue and it will be 2nd appeal in the same matter, is not it? And Registrar may reject the appeal to register.

 

There are 3 ways to tackle this issue:

 

Based on the order of CIC/SIC, if the PIO still does not provide you information or provides you information you are dissatisfied with, then you can

 

1. File a "Complaint against Non Compliance" by the PIO to the CIC/SIC. The disadvantage is that you will hear the message from 1980's..."Aap Kataar Mein Hain". Advantage is that you are directly approaching the authority whose order is being disobeyed and can therefore put pressure on the PIO.

 

2. File a FA with the FAA for the PIO disobeying the Commission's orders and also ask the FAA to approach the head of the PA for taking against PIO for a) insubordination, b) illegally defying the orders of a body duly constituted by an Act of Parliament and c) Malafide denial of information. Demand that an entry be made in his service records and/or APAR. Send a copy to the PIO and the Head of the PA for information and necessary action. Follow this up with a RTI Application to the same PIO asking as to what did the head of the PA do on your letter ?

Advantage of this is faster solution (hopefully) and putting the fear in PIO's mind.

Your subsequent RTI will also indicate to them that you are not willing to give up.

If nothing happens, file a Complaint to the CIC/SIC claiming that you once again followed the due process of law as contained in the Act and still nothing is happening.

(So, this in effect takes you back to option 1).

 

3. Only write a letter to the Head of the PA complaining against PIO for a) insubordination, b) illegally defying the orders of a body duly constituted by an Act of Parliament and c) Malafide denial of information. Demand that an entry be made in his service records and/or APAR. Send a copy to the PIO.

If there is no action within a reasonable time, then follow with a RTI Application.

Suimultaneously follow option 1 above.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Guest pcbali

hip hip hurrey, u r marvelous, man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
colnrkurup

The aspect of review has been fully discussed in this forum itself many times. There are many posts on that issue. The Supreme Court of India has clarified that every courts or tribunals have an inherant power to review its own proceedings. Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC allow a review if there are some mistake or error apparant on the face of the records.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Guest pcbali

Dear Colnrkurup. You have been stressfully asserting regularly in your posts that Review Power is inherent in every court and so too in ICs. But the condition "some mistake or error apparent on the face of record” is taken blanket by ICs that it is deemed by them that no mistake is made by them and as such no review (lol). To best of my knowledge there had never been any review in SIC Punjab. (Or might be very very rare which is unnoticed) I also do not know that how many applicants/defendants have filed review petitions, But the review is not been encouraged, this is sure. Now I have decided to fight for final battle in this matter. I previously had applied for a review; IC has not acknowledged or took any action. I have filed an RTI application on IC that what is status of my application and if no action has been taken, what stop them to do review, provide me the copy of document. (I have also asked that how many such review petitions have been received by them and what had been done with them in tabulated form, I think I have posted in one thread this letter)The RTI application has not been replied by PIO, let it come, then I will see. If the PIO and FAA of IC decides that the review petition is not allowed. I will file a writ in HC that the IC must decide the review petition at least as "accepted" or “rejected" and inform the petitioner, so that he may go to writ after exhausting this remedy available. How do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Ajit Borade

Dear Sir,

I have never gone after the govt. officers for no reason.

In each of the office where I have filed rti applications, their callous attitude has compelled me to do so.

And , i have personally suffered by the hands of these babus.

Take for example osmanabad Charity commisioner; in his offfice I was made to wait for 7 months and run from piller to post for a work which officially should take place within 15 days to 1 month. This is because, I never entertained the agents and middlemen for this work and i did not grease their palms.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
colnrkurup

pcbali,

 

Review petition filed against an inconvenient orders does not fall under 'Error apparant on the face of records - Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. Will you be able to point out any specifc case falling under this provision refused ? Normally it does not happen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Guest pcbali
pcbali,

 

Review petition filed against an inconvenient orders does not fall under 'Error apparant on the face of records - Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. Will you be able to point out any specifc case falling under this provision refused ? Normally it does not happen

 

It is very subjective and moreover the same appellate authority is to decide against whom we make a charge prima facie that he had done a blunder. It is obvious, he will not agree. By the way, what is percentage of review petitions accepted normally in civil courts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
colnrkurup

Generally it is very low. The positive results might be negligible. I had filed review petitions in many cases before the District Court, Lok Ayukta, State Information Commission and Appellate Authority (LR) under Order LXVII Ruke 1 CPC. In all cases I had brought out specific errors. Though the Courts/Tribunals have admitted all my cases, notices issued, parties arrigned and heard regularly in most of my cases, the courts in their judgments tried to justify at length that the errors pointed out by me did not materially affected the judgment. Invariably they were all dismissed. But in one case of District Court, Tellicherry, the very acceptance of the error pointed out by me has literally gave me the benefit sought for and resulted in a position as if I won the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Guest pcbali

Thats great, at least the law process is not ignored. Even if dismissed, still I feel that if the court do listen, it is enough and that can make the judge to feel that he made an error somewhere, though he may not admit. He may take care in future, which should be one of target of applicant. It is nearly nice to have your comments. It encouraged me to file review petitions at least, may get dismissed or admitted.

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

    • Priya De
      By Priya De
      A biennial study conducted by Satark Nagrik Sangathan and Centre for Equity Studies has revealed a grim picture of RTI Act implementation with waiting time at information commissions running in years and commissions in several states becoming non-functional owing to unfilled vacancies. The study has found that if an RTI appeal were to be filed in West Bengal state information commission on November 1, 2017, it would be disposed of in 2060 – after 43 years. In Kerala, it would take six years six months and Odisha 5 years 3 months. The main reason for such a long waiting time is the reduced number of information commissioners that commissions are working with. 
      The report has brought out, what it calls a “concerning trend”. The information commissions, which are the last resort for the common man to complain against wrongful denial of information, are increasingly returning cases. The highest number of cases have been returned by CIC, followed by Gujarat, Assam and Uttarakhand.
    • Shrawan
      By Shrawan
      CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
      BLOCK IV, OLD JNU CAMPUS, NEW DELHI 110067


       

      F.No.PBA/06/149
      22nd September, 2006


       
       

      Appeal No.112 /ICPB/2006


      In the matter of Right to Information Act, 2005 – Section 19.
       

      Appellant: Shri Dhruba Charan Naik
      Public authority: Department of Post, Orissa Circle, Bhubaneshwar. The Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices & CPIO. Shri S.K. Kamila, Director Postal Services – Appellate Authority.
      FACTS:
       
      By an application dated 21.3.2006 addressed to the CPIO, the appellant has requested for information regarding percentage of marks obtained by the last candidate (category wise i.e. OBC/SC/ST) of selected candidates of open market for filling up vacancies of Postal Assistants/Sorting Assistants for the recruitment years 1994, 1995 and 1996 separately,
      pertaining to Sundargarh Postal Division. It appears that the CPIO declined to furnish the information and accordingly he appealed to the AA. By a decision dated 2.5.2006, the AA directed the CPIO to furnish the information sought for by the appellant and accordingly, the CPIO furnished certain information on 9.5.2006, which according to the appellant was incomplete and therefore, he filed an appeal before the Post Master General, who has advised him that the second appeal lies before this Commission and accordingly, the appellant has filed
      this appeal on 25.6.2006. Comments were called for from the CPIO in which the CPIO has furnished full information and it is also stated that similar information has been sent to the appellant. On receipt of the comments and reply, the appellant has written to the CPIO on 17.8.2006, seeking for certain clarification and endorsing a copy of the said letter, the appellant has sought time to file his rejoinder after receipt of clarifications from the CPIO.
       
      DECISION:
       
      From the reply furnished to the appellant as per the comments, I find that whatever information that the appellant had sought, the same has been furnished to the appellant. In his letter dated 17.8.2006 addressed to the CPIO, the appellant has not questioned the information
      furnished but has asked for not only additional information but also raised various queries un connected with the information sought and provided. A far as this appeal is concerned, since the information sought has been provided, the appeal stands closed.
       
      3. Let a copy of this decision be sent to the appellant and CPIO.
       
       


      Sd/-
      (Padma Balasubramanian)
      Information Commissioner


Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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