No provision for condoning the delay in filing the appeal

late RTI AppealFirst Appellate authority (FAA) under RTI Act rejected the Appeal just because it was filed beyond 30 days, in the pretext that “There is no provision under RTI for condoning the delay in filing the appeal”. The commission retreated Section 19 (1) of RTI Act and directed FAA that “the First appellate authority should not reject the first appeal filed beyond the prescribed period without hearing the appellant and consider the reason of delay.”

First appellate authority should have considered the reasons for delay proposed by appellant as proviso to section 19 (1) of the RTI Act provides:

“Provided that such officer may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of thirty days if he or she is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.”

For RTI Discussions and help, log on to our forum here!

No provision for condoning the delay in filing the appeal

Earlier the FAA had rejected the appeal by stating that appeal is delayed beyond prescribed period of 30 days. The same has been filed after delay of more than three years. There is no provision under RTI for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The decision can be read here: CIC_SA_A_2015_001375_M_177829!

Posted in RTI Awareness
Tags: , ,
5 comments on “No provision for condoning the delay in filing the appeal
  1. jagdish rawat says:

    In decision No. CIC/OK/A/2008/00467 +00397/SG/0921 dated 07/01/2009, the Information Commissioner has admitted the disposal of my First appeal dated 17/01/2007 by the First Appellate Authority on 04/04/2007, after 77 days where as under Section 19 (6) the maximum period is prescribed 45 days under the RTI Act. Besides,my said appeal was under Section 6 (3) of the RTI Act which must be processed within 5 days but the FAA has neither ensured for seeking information from the Public Authorities nor Shri Shailash Gandhi has not penalize the CPIO/FAA for not seeking the information from the related authorities. On the contrary, Shri Gandhi has eliminated my two registered second appeals and substituted by some forged appeal dated 19/07/2007 under forgery and criminal conspiracy. My appeals were registered on 11/02/2008 and 19/02/2008. As a result of the said forgery, he dismissed my appeals without hearing either of the appeal by stating that the applicant expects the redressal of his grievances under RTI which I ever requested for in my appeals.The Commission even did not provide me a copy of the appeal dated 19/07/2007. generated by Shri Gandhi in his decision despite my repeated request to CIC authorities.

  2. J. S. Rawat says:

    Section 19 (1) is very explicit on this issue. But the Central Information Commission has neither ensured the compliance of Section 6 (3)and section 19 (6) of the RTI Act from the First Appellate Authority. In decision No. CIC/OK/A/2008/00467+00397/SG/0921 dated 7th January 2009. The first appeal was preferred on 17/01/2007 which was disposed of on 04/04/2007, almost after 77 days beyond the prescribed extended period of 45 days even without the compliance of Section 6 (3. The maximum mandatory period for disposing of First Appeal is 45 days but how the CIC has admitted the disposal of FAA after the prescribed period even without ensuring the information requested for.

  3. Shashavali says:

    I ask & pray the RTI India. From Commission Show provisions clearly to all the Departments by emails, then they will be aware of such applications.

  4. rajesh kumer verma says:

    The public interest in the information sought by RTI PMO Railway Section 7 ( 1 ) within the ordered letter pending in DLW , Varanasi

  5. R. Muralidharan says:

    The Commission was right in holding that the FAA was wrong in stating that the FAA has no power to condone delay in first appeal. However, the Commission ought to have directed to the FAA to deal the matter on right and condone the delay if there was sufficient cause. But here, it directed to the PIO to provide the information. Where the delay is not justified, the FAA can reject the appeal.

Add to Story