Asst PIO and First Appeal

[Debasish]

I had asked for some details from the PIO of Orissa financial Services Corporation. The information was related to some income tax declaration made by him. As per CIC decision this information is public information. The Asst. PIO replied saying that this information cannot be shared. I appealed to the first appellate authority. As i could not find any form or fee details from the website of OSFC I sent a normal letter. Now he has replied back rejecting the request because of this not being in the right format and about fee.

Deb

[kushal]

This is not correct manner in which the Appellant Authority has responded. Have they supplied you with the correct format and the process? If they have not suggested, you must lodge a complaint with the SCIC.

[sidmis]

The Asst. PIO replied saying that this information cannot be shared.
I appealed to the first appellate authority.

Dear Debasish,
I am surprised see that the APIO has responded to you instead of the PIO.
Who has signed the letter?
As per rule the reply from PIO must also mention about the Appeal procedure.
As kushal has rightly said you must lodge a complain with Orissa SIC.

you must lodge a complaint with the SCIC.

Kushal, It should be SIC not SCIC.

Sidharth

[kushal]

Stand corrected

[crusader]

yes, sidharth is very true that the information cannot be supplied by the ACPIO, it must invariably be supplied by the PIO (CPIO)

[Debasish]

The information is related to the PIO himself. Can that be a plea to handover the request to APIO? I think the PIO should have handed over the request to the next level authority. Also, the answer from the APIO did mention the Appelate authority's name/designation and asked for appealing before 30 days of receipt of the reply. However, there was no format nor any fee. There is also no information on this in the OSFC website. However, in one of the Orissa Govt website there is a template of a manual which I assume all public authorities are required to follow as far as posting of data on the website is concerned. As per this template OSFC should have posted the format etc for appeal. Please let me know if I am correct in assuming this. I am sure many of you would have seen this template prepared by TCS.

[sidmis]

Dear Debashis,
Instead of going through all those templates please visit this page New Page 1.
And download the Orissa RTI Rules from there.
http://www.orissa.gov.in/righttoinfo...n/rti-rule.pdf &
http://www.orissa.gov.in/rti/amendme...Rules,2005.pdf.
Use Form 'D' and affix Court fee stamp of Rupees 20/- for first appeal
and Form 'E' and Rs. 25/- Stamp for second appeal.
Hope I clear some of your doubts.
And don't forget to come back here and and post your experience with 1st Appellate Authority.

Best Of Luck in your RTI Quest.

Sidharth

[kushal]

Great work Sidharth.

Thanks for sharing this.

[Debasish]

i have already appealed for the first time but not in the format and without the fees...now should I appeal again or go for the second appeal to the SIC. I have seen those URLs.... but this is my question.

[sidmis]

Since you have skipped the prescribed format, your application
is most likely to be rejected. You have to apply again in the proper format.
You may do that now or the 1st AA may ask you for the same while rejecting your application.
You cannot skip this and go for 2nd appeal to the SIC.

Sidharth

[karira]

Originally Posted by sidmis

Dear Debasish,
I am surprised see that the APIO has responded to you instead of the PIO.
Who has signed the letter?
As per rule the reply from PIO must also mention about the Appeal procedure.
As kushal has rightly said you must lodge a complain with Orissa SIC.
Kushal, It should be SIC not SCIC.

Sidharth

Please see the following decision of the CIC:

http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_05052006_3.pdf

The appellant has complained that the APIO, rather than the PIO had furnished
him the reply dated 8.11.05, which did not carry the name of the designated PIO, nor did
it mention the name of the appellate authority before whom the appellant could file his
appeal against the order of the PIO. It is the appellant’s case that the APIO’s
responsibility under Section 5(2) of the RTI Act is limited only to receiving the request
for information or an appeal and to transmit the same to the appropriate PIO or to the
Central Information Commissioner as the case may be. The APIO cannot take on himself
the duties and the liabilities of a PIO as contained in Section 5, sub section (1), (3) (5)
and Sections 6 and Section 7 of the Act. It is the contention of the appellant that the
failure of the APIO to mention the name of the PIO in his order dated 8.11.05 was a
serious error which was further compounded by the APIO’s misjudgement in
unauthorisedly stepping into the shoes of the PIO.

From the stand-point of the technicality of the RTI Act, the appellant, no doubt,
has a point. The Act has surely limited the APIO’s role only to receiving applications for
information and appeals and transmitting the same to their proper destination. His
responsibilities are not co-extensive with the PIO’s.

We would, however, like to limit our examination of the case only to the point
whether this action of the APIO created any special disability for the appellant in
exercising his rights under the Act.

We agree with the appellant that in the normal course an applicant for information
has a right to receive the reply from the PIO and the PIO only. We, however, see no legal
difficulty in the PIO using the services of an APIO to transmit the former’s decision on
the application for information through the APIO. In our understanding, this will not lead
to any miscarriage of justice or place undue restriction on an information seeker’s rights
under the RTI Act. We, however, like to caution that any order issued by a APIO on
behalf of PIO must clearly state that the former was only transmitting the orders of latter
and should also state the name and the designation of the PIO on whose behalf the
AAPIO might be acting. This will enable the information seeker to bring against the PIO
any charge of delay etc. if that happens to be the case.

[sidmis]

Thanks Karira for this post.

I was looking for a decision like this for a long time.

It will help me and others facing similar dilemmas.

Sidharth