Jump to content
  • 0

Can 'asking time to reply' be accepted as 'rti reply' ?






I faced many situations where the SPIO do not respond/reply to applicant. But after the FAA is shooted, they wake up only to send a back dated reply, which is sent in ordinary post, STATING they need MORE TIME as the data compilation needs time.


The questions that strike my common sense are:


1. No reply from SPIO within 30 days NEVER raise any warning bell that a PROVISION OF LAW IS VIOLATED, which attracts PENALTY.


2. FAA never bother to instruct SPIO to reply on WAR-FOOTING.


3. That, the worst practice of BACK DATING is adopted. FAA is not concerned with these immoral practices.


(I can quote, in my experience the WEST BENGAL POLICE DIRECTORATE, states in a letter which is back dated by 45 days that the base record on which my RTI is based is MISSING.)


(Another case in this topic is, WEST BENGAL PERSONAL & ADMIN ISTRATIVE REFORMS - WBPAR. Here, the SPIO did not bother to reply and after my FAA, to my surprise, I got a "ORDER" dated Feb 6th 2012, stating that the matter of my application dated Dec2, 2011 was much conneceted with another department (HOME RTI DEPARTMENT, which is also officed in the same building complex), and said that it had transfered my application as per application of secion 6(3). It also stated that the transfer happened on January 25th, 2012 and the same had ALREADY BEEN COMMUNICATED TO ME. THE SHARP CONTRAST is that the FAA's ORDER cannot be termed as an ORDER. It is just a way of DISPOSAL which TRANSFERED the application to SPIO of another department but SHOCKINGLY IT IGNORED THE EMPHASIS OF SECTION 6(3) PARA 2, which states THAT SUCH TRANSFER BE DONE WITHIN 5 DAYS OF RECEIPT OF APPLICATION AND THE SAME BE COMMUNICATED TO THE APPLICATION IMMEDIATELY. THE FUNNIEST PART OF IT IS THAT I RECEIVED THE TRANSFER CONFIRMATION WHICH SAID TO BE DATED JAN 25, 2012 REACHED ME ON FEB 17, 2012, WHEREAS THE FAA'S ORDER DATED FEB 6TH 2012 ALREADY HAD AN ATTACHMENT OF IT.


4. That RTI replies, which is a legal document are being dispatched through NORMAL post.


5. After all these hassles, the reply only contain that the info/data required is tedious and need MUCH time. Here also, the SPIO does not express the 'time required' in measurable terms (days)


6. In these situations can I again write to FAA insisting a hearing wherein I can discuss and solve the above 5 points or can i shoot Second Appeal or Complaint with SCIC...?


Please comment....




S. Sridhar, Kolkata (Southwind)

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

dear Sridhar ,

it is better to analyse each of such situations vis-a-vis provisions of the Act and then consider what the situation demands . I agree with all of your observations as almost everyone of us have faced these situations . Overall situation will decide whether SA or a complaint is proper . FAA has no power to review his Order .

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Dear Sridhar,


Most of the FAAs are connived with the PIOs, as they work in the same Dept.

This is the reason I suggested FAAs from other Dept/Orgnz'n.

If you need information, this case is appropriate for a 2nd appeal.

If you have only punishment in your mind, send complaint u/s 18. But, that may take a lot of time & outcome may not be satisfactory. Because, the ICs (earlier bureaucrats) are not fond of sec18.

As described by you, FAA seems to be connived with PIO. So, Appealing again to the same FAA would not render a miracle.

You do not need to Address SCIC. Send 2nd Appeal to the SIC.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Thanks Mr. Digal & Mr. Malhotra,


It is tru that each of us face such hardships in seeking info. Then, it naturally suggest that there should be some move to improvise the act.


As Mr. Digal said, appointment of other NON INTER-DEPENDENT DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL AS FAA , sounds brilliant.


Hope if RTS Act comes to force, a combination of RTI & RTS may render some justice to the hidden Transperancy.


I recently filed a WP in Calcutta HC against the SCIC + FAA + PIO. The outcome is PARTIAL JUSTICE, in so much as the Judge ordered the SCIC to get the info. within AS SHORT AS 45 days(!) where he did not note my prayers reg. the delay caused by SCIC in conducting a hearing. While the HC did not nook beyond the papers and fix responsibility of SCIC and ask it to get the complaint SOLVED. Mine is not an isolate case. Few activists do knock the HC through WP and it is high time our Judicial system get themself ACQUAINT with something called SUO-MOTO and buy itself BINOCULORS and SCANNERES to see and feel beyond the printed green papers and do justice to justice.


The pathetic condition of RTI, in atleast as it relates to West Bengal , is, time and again the same SPIO/PIO/FAA do vehemently default and misuse the provisions of RTI Act and DO CAUSE NUISANCE and push the information seker to the steps of court, which again WELL-BEHAVES in a partial and SHORT-SIGHTED MANNER.




When pendency is used as a OMNIPOWER SHIELD by SCIC/CIC, the actual filth behind it are... inefficiency, non-dedicated work force, corruption, selfish motive, NEXUS, bribery, passing on info seeker's personal details to SPIO/PIO or to the official on who's activity the info seeker shooted the RTI letter, OFFICIAL AUDACITY of PUBLIC SERVANTS, lack of accountability, insider-trading, lethargy of each and every staff of any SCIC/CIC.


We are still decades far from PRACTIVAL TRANSPERANCY.



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

Dear Sridhar,


Technically RTI is a time bound one way street as follows:


Method A:


Under Section 6(1) - File a RTI > Did not receive the requested information >


>> Under Section 19(1) - File a First Appeal with the First Appellate Authority > Yet, did not receive the requested information >


>> Under Section 19(3) - File a Second Appeal with an Information Commission.


Method B:


Under Section 6(1) - File A RTI > Did not receive the requested information >


>> Under Section 18(1) - File a Complaint with an Information Commission.



  • RTI is a time bound procedure and technically there is no way whereby a RTI applicant can either Reverse the sequence or Repeat any of the steps mentioned in the above procedures.
  • Please Note that as the procedure is time bound a RTI applicant cannot miss out on the time limits laid down for approaching the next level, in cases where the requested information has not been provided by a PIO / FAA.
  • Given the recent Supreme Court Decision on the subject matter of section 18(1) viz-a-viz section 19(3), it is advisable to approach an Information Commission under section 19(3).
  • Yes, you can mention / list the points mentioned in your first post as your grounds of second appeal before an Information Commission and seek an appropriate redress in the prayers of your appeal for the same.

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.

Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  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.

  • Tell a friend

    Love RTI INDIA- Online RTI? Tell a friend!
  • Members

    • Prasad GLN
  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
    • Total Posts
  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Create New...

Important Information

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