Jump to content
P.Suresh

What is time limit for RTI query that deals on aspect of a court during its vacation?

Recommended Posts

P.Suresh

Dear All,

I need information under RTI from my own case file and have filed an RTI application yesterday. This information would make all the difference for JUSTICE per se and my well being too. I have made a special application today and requested that it may please be given top most priority under "Life and liberty" clause. The cause espoused is well known to PIO.

 

 

Unfortunately, court will be on vacation during the next 30 days. I need this information very urgently. RTI is an administrative function and several administrative personnel do not have vacation..

 

What will be the maximum time that PIO could take?

 

Thank You,

 

P. Suresh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dr.s.malhotra

Vacation or no vacation , if your RTI Application reaches the correct PIO , it has to be addressed as per time stipulated in the Act . If a case is made out for L/L clause , then it will be 48 hours , otherwise it will be 30 days . For L/L issue , you should get in the touch with the PIO personally . Any person having such a cause , is normally expected to be diligent ... leave apart the legal aspect .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
P.Suresh

Thank you v.v.v.v much for the timely reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
P.Suresh

* PIO is involving in some undesirable acts and is hiding, perhaps acting as shield of some.

* No amount of dignified, ethically correct request is being heeded.

* He is not yielding to F/f request though the matter is urgent.

* Is there any other legal means to ENFORCE my right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira

If you feel that the Life or Liberty issue is relevant to your case, and 48 hours have passed, then file a first appeal immediately for deemed denial of information.

 

Clearly title your first appeal as "LIFE or LIBERTY matter"

 

After filing the first appeal wait for about 10 days and then file second appeal with CIC / SIC.

That should also clearly mention "life or liberty matter" right at the top.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jetley

Karira ji, with due respect, can the life and liberty clause be invoked at the stage of 1st appeal, if it was not used at all in the application for request for information?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
P.Suresh

It is pertinent to note following facts:

* The matter is definitely L/L.

* I forgot to record L/L on my application when I submitted it at 4.28PM on Thursday, June 2, 2011. Registry counter closed at 4.30P.M. I realised my mistake immediately. But, I could do nothing more.

* Next day (not during court vacation) i.e. Friday, June 3, 2011, early in the morning, I have referred this RTI application and have specifically requested for information under L/L clause.

* I met PIO on June 8 (against an informal, but definite appointment i.e. after he consented to meet me).

* PIO, last of all is not justified in beating around the bush. RTI as a means to enforce transparency itself is lost if there is ANY dilution.

* It is relevant to point out that this 2nd RTI query is just a modification of my first ever RTI application in my life. In my the 1st ever RTI reply in my life, PIO has provided a reply that beats, circumvents, defeats, breaks the question itself. I never imagined that it would happen, specially given the fact that I have appraised him through a power point presentation on gravity of injustice; difficulties that I am subjected to; nitty-gritties of the case; illegalities that threaten justice per se. It is already 59 days (as on today) since that application. It has been rendered into being a futile exercise.

* Now, I do not have any other authentic, legally correct means to get justice. So, I have been forced to revisit RTI. I have exercised my right, have fine tuned my 1st query and have posed a pinpointed query that is just a logical extension of the first query.

* Let me assure this elite forum that the question does not pose any constraints, whatsoever if one wants to be honest, clean. It takes nothing to answer this query. My entire case file is right on PIO's table (and not in record room/racks). He has been requested information on a matter that is bread and butter to him. He needs to just run through the file and authentically record Yes, this, this document is available. No, this, this document is not available. Honest and no ulterior considerations, objectives takes nothing to give this reply.

* It will be of professional interest to this forum to note that it would be a new lead, a cherishable victory to RTI per se, nation per se. All will stand to gain, gain through demolishing veils of secrecy, clever misguidance, clever abuse of public office (It does not specifically refer to PIO in question, but all that gets termed as other side of the case).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira
Karira ji, with due respect, can the life and liberty clause be invoked at the stage of 1st appeal, if it was not used at all in the application for request for information?

 

The whole scheme of the RTI Act is time bound - except for the decision of the SIC/CIC - for which there is no time limit.

The only mention of the 48 Hour time limit is in the case of the PIO for providing information.

There is no mention of the time limits in such cases at the FAA stage and SIC/CIC stage.

However, considering the fact that the matter involves L&L, the FAA and the SIC/CIC should also be considerate towards such cases.

That is why I suggested following up with the FAA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
P.Suresh

* Vacation to courts from June 4 to July 4. Matter v.v...v.v urgent and fully justified.

* Forgot to include F/F clause on RTI query filed on June 2, 2011 at 4.28 P.M. Registry closed at 4.30 P.M.

* Early morning on June 3 have made special request to accord priority under F/F clause to RTI query made on June 2.

* Is this legally tenable or should I file a fresh RTI. - The only difference now would be: 'Same question + F/F clause included prominently. Nothing else'.

 

 

Background: Filed 1st RTI of my life. Reply is absolutely abysmal. PIO has circumvented the query itself. Preferred FA (First Appeal). 30 days expires on June 11. To best of my knowledge, appeal has not been attended to by FAA (First Appellate Authority) so far (June 11, Saturday). There is lot to be desired as far as honest, straight forward dealing is concerned. Need authentic, true, factual reply v.v.....v.v urgently. Am running from pillar to post espousing my cause, but my efforts have not begotten desired result. My cause is definitely F/F. All information is already with PIO. 2nd RTI is modification of 1st RTI (Am forced to file 2nd RTI only because I did not get correct information though I have apprised PIO through a power point presentation) during personal appointment with him and the objective of having made my 1st RTI of my life. True information in my case will make all the difference to my life. Yes life. Nothing less. I need definite help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jetley

What is F/F?

 

Assuming that it is life and liberty, you can write a fresh letter to the AA that it affects your life and liberty, giving him reasonable grounds and evidence for the same in the application, and pray for timely decision as the prescribed time limit is already near expiry. Additionally, you can make the fresh application to PIO, prominently writing the life and liberty clause on top, similarly explaining and proving how life and liberty is affected, praying for information within 48 hours, and at the end of 48 hrs if you do not get the information, file another 1st appeal or move to court

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira

P Suresh,

 

DO NOT start multiple thread and make multiple posts on the same topic/issue.

Continue in the same thread only.

 

Your threads have been merged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jj99

Vacation is for courts ( judges/benches ) and not for staff this is what I believe

regarding L/L pl. read this cic order, and then apply in your case, is your information covered

SG-12032010-12.pdf

  • Like 1

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
Reply to this topic...

×   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

    • ganpat1956
      By ganpat1956
      A Supreme Court lawyer has moved the Central Information Commission seeking information on the procedure of the recruitment of class III and IV employees in the Delhi High Court after it was denied by its administration.
       
      Advocate Kamini Jaiswal approached the CIC contending that orders of the High Court Public Information Officer and Chief Public Information Officer (First Appellate Authority) refusing to part away with the information was a violation of the Right to Information Act and also her Fundamental Rights.
       
      She alleged that information had been denied for erroneous reasons and none of the exemption available under Section 8 of the Act allows the authority not to part away with the information sought.
       
      The lawyer had filed the application before the Public Information Officier on September 22, 2006 seeking information regarding number of class III and class IV employees recruited by the Court from the year 1990 to 2006 and the procedure followed for their recruitment.
       
      The High Court PIO while denying the information held that information pertaining to those decisions which were taken administratively or quasi-judicially would be available only to the affected parties.
       
      The lawyer then approached Appellate Authority challenging the PIO order contending that the High Court (Right to information) Rules were inconsistent with the provision of the Right to Information Act and it should be held void.
       
      But the Appellate Authority refused to accept the contention of the lawyer and dismissed her appeal. Now the lawyer has moved Central Information Commission against this order.
       
      CIC moved on recruitment procedure of High Court .:. NewKerala.Com, India News Channel
    • ganpat1956
      By ganpat1956
      By David Rose
      Tuesday, 20 February 2007
       
      An MP has pledged to lead a Commons revolt over a controversial attempt to exempt Parliament from the Freedom of Information Act.
       
      A private members bill, introduced by former Tory chief whip David Maclean, would, if it becomes law, prevent journalists and others from using FoI requests to obtain information contained in MPs' correspondence with government departments and other public bodies.
       
      But Norman Baker, the Liberal Democrat MP for Lewes, has vowed to oppose the bill when it comes before the Commons for its crucial Report Stage and Third Reading on 20 April.
       
      Maclean's Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill has already been given an unopposed Second Reading and has been approved by 19-member committee drawn from MPs in all parties.
       
      Opponents can attempt to block Private Members Bills at the Report Stage using filibustering tactics. To prevent Baker and other critics from talking out the two-clause bill, Maclean may be forced to muster 100 MPs in order to force a closure vote and secure the Commons' approval to be sent to the House of Lords.
       
      Maclean has been impressed by the amount of support he has secured. Among the MPs who spoke up for the Bill in committee were Labour MPs George Howarth (Knowsley North and Sefton) Kevan Jones, (North Durham) and Fraser Kemp (Houghton and Washington East).
       
      Liberal Democrat MP Nick Harvey (North Devon) also raised no objection.
      Harvey, chairman of the House of Commons Commission, told MPs: "Requests under the FoI Act are becoming increasingly intrusive, particularly on issues such as t he additional costs allowance. In that respect, they are getting into very personal realms - they are going behind the front door into Members' homes."
       
      While the Government insists the Bill must be decided on a free vote, Tony Wright, Labour chairman of the Commons Public Administration Committee, has accused the whips of collaborating to ensure the Bill gets approved.
      Constitutional Affairs minister Bridget Prentice has also indicated where her own sympathies lie.
       
      "We should not allow the 2000 Act to disrupt the vital relationship between and MP and his or her constituents, and the time has come to address the issue," she told MPs.
       
      Baker told Press Gazette: "The Government is backtracking on the FoI Act.
      "This is a throw back to the 1950s when Parliament was a private members' club.
       
      "If this is passed we will have the absurd position of exempting from the legislation those people who passed the law."
       
      Baker recently won a case before the Information Tribunal which forced the disclosure of more details of MPs' travel expenses.
       
      Press Gazette - UK Journalism News and Journalism Jobs

Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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