Jump to content
  • 0

RTI divided


code88

Question

code88

See, I had done an online RTI on the railways and it had 5 points. Now they divided the rti into three parts NRLKK/R/E/20/00011 was divided into NRLKK/R/E/20/00011 , NRLKK/R/E/20/00011/1 and NRLKK/R/E/20/00011/2 .

 

Now they have replied to NRLKK/R/E/20/00011 and it says I can come for inspection, by the way I had not asked for inspection. And the rest of the two rti has replied that the reply is in the reply of the first RTI. Now if I have to do an appeal , do I need to appeal under each RTI registration number or the single one?

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
Prasad GLN

As Railways is the largest public authority, they might have segregate the application CPIO wise, as the information solicited may be pertaining to several other individual and independent departments.  In case of such instance earlier, in one CIC decision on Postal authorities, it was ruled that it is applicant's duty.

Now the appellant can file First appeals on the basis of segregation.

RTI Act stipulates that information has to be given in the form in which it is requested.  First appeal can be filed on those grounds.

It all depends on the information solicited and the information solicited by applicant in some cases may be more than 1000 pages.

As stated for all your queries in earlier replies, there should be a logical end for the information you are requiring.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Moderators
Sunil Ahya

You will need to file separate first appeals for each of the three RTIs.

Grounds of First Appeal:

1. That, I have not invoked section 2(j)(i) of the RTI Act, for seeking an inspection of information and I do not wish to seek an inspection before obtaining the requested information.

2. That, as per section 7(3)(a) of the RTI Act, a PIO is supposed to the details of further fees representing the cost of providing the information as determined by him, together with the calculations made to arrive at the amount in accordance with fee prescribed under sub-section (1), requesting him to deposit that fees, and the period intervening between the despatch of the said intimation and payment of fees shall be excluded for the purpose of calculating the period of thirty days referred to in that sub-section;

However, the PIO has not done so.

3. That, as per section 7(1) of the RTI Act, a PIO is either supposed to provide the requested information within 30 days or deny the same for any of the reasons specified in section 8 and 9 of the Act.

Thus, the PIO has disposed of my request for information in violation of section 7(1) read with 7(3)(a) of the RTI Act.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Most Solved

    1. 1
      Sunil Ahya
      Sunil Ahya
      3
    2. 2
      RTI RAJENDRAN
      RTI RAJENDRAN
      1
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      Sunil Ahya
      Sunil Ahya
      10
    2. 2
      RTI RAJENDRAN
      RTI RAJENDRAN
      7
    3. 3
      Prasad GLN
      Prasad GLN
      4
    4. 4
      subbu23
      subbu23
      2
    5. 5
      Priya De
      Priya De
      2
  • Our picks

    • Instances that involve disclosure of sensitive information, it may be rationale for the CPIO to ask for citizenship proof
      Information Commissioner Divya Prakash Sinha held that seeking citizenship proof in case of demand of sensitive information is justified but seeking a signed copy of the application does not seem appropriate as the online portal does not mandate uploading of signatures.
       
      Sinha was hearing the plea of an Odisha-based RTI applicant who had sought from the Army information regarding implementation of rules under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 in all defence establishments.
      The Army did not provide any information to the applicant, the CIC noted. Akhand approached the Commission with a complaint that the central public information officer (CPIO) of the Army has demanded a signed copy of his online RTI application as well as identity proof before providing him the records.
      “In this regard, it may be noted that as far as CPIO’s request for citizenship proof is concerned, the same is not questioned as Commission in its prior decision(s) has held the view that Armed Forces stand on a slightly different footing as there may be instances that involve disclosure of sensitive information, and for such reasons it may be rationale for the CPIO to ask for citizenship proof,” Sinha noted.
      Originally posted here!
       
      • 1

        Reputation Points

      • 0 replies
    • Some of you -- at least CJ Karira, who helped me years ago in one crucial step, getting SEBI to acknowledge its own circular! -- know of a 15-year quest among desi academics to get SEBI to release its stale masked FII data for academic research. At one point years ago a parliamentary query by Shyam Benegal, then Rajya Sabha MP, sought the release of this data for academic research. He then made a subsequent RTI query asking what had done about his complaint about the terrible answer he got to his parliamentary question. We thought we had succeeded when in response to that SEBI did put in public domain that FII data and promised to update. And to  their credit, they did update it from time to time, even if a bit fitfully. But thanks to a question by a curious IIT-Madras undergrad, we realized that what SEBI gave with one hand they took away with another. While the idea was that the FII IDs would be masked to preserve privacy, without telling anyone, SEBI changed the masks each month, drastically reducing the value for academic research (since you can't even tell how many distinct FIIs are there in the data base, and whether anyone traded over time). It also caused mistakes in academic research since no one imagined that SEBI would use changing masks, when no other regulator or exchange on the planet does so.

      To get SEBI to finally agree to not hide by changing masks, but to keep a stable mask, has taken many years. But at least per the ruling received yesterday, it has been achieved, with no violence to anyone. I attach the ruling. I can also post the various submissions made at the Second Appeal hearing if there is any interest (need to scrub email-IDs, per the policy of this site).

      Addendum_To_CIC_2nd_appeal_28th_February_2020.pdfThis RTI site, in particular Karira-ji, has been very helpful to me in the course of this long episode thru countless RTI queries. And I am grateful for that from the bottom of my heart. I am confident we will see quite a few PhD dissertations using this database within the next few years.

      Addendum_To_CIC_2nd_appeal_28th_February_2020.pdf
      Second_Addendum_w_Appendices_29th_Feb_2020.pdf
      CIC-SEBIH-A-2017-139953-BJ.pdf
      Third_Addendum to Additional Submission for RTI Second Appeal_2nd_March_2020.pdf
      To_CIC_2nd_appeal_27th_February_2020_Redacted.pdf
      Draft_Talking_Points_for_the_Hearing.pdf
      From_SEBI_Written Submiissions - Murugappa Krishnan 139953.pdf
      thanking_CIC_post_decision_Redacted.pdf
      • 4

        Reputation Points

      • 3 replies
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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