Commission forwarded RTI Application to wrong address

[linardni]

I had sent a RTI Application dated 30-08-2007 to the SPIO, Youth Services Department, Govt. of West Bengal through the WB Information Commission, Kolkata since I was not sure about the address of the SPIO. On 11-09-2007, I received a copy of letter which was forwarded from the Commission to the concerned SPIO along with my RTI Application. After the expiry of 35 days, I received no response from the SPIO and submitted a First Appeal to the State Information Commission. Only after that I received a letter from the Commission dated 01-10-2007 that my original RTI Application was inadvertently sent in wrong address. Hence it's forwarded again to the correct address.
Please let me know from which date will the 35 days count down start? From the date of receipt of the RTI Application initially or from the date on which it was redirected to the correct address. Moreover what may be the fate of my first appeal? Do I have any move or will I rest as of now?

[karira]

linardni,

This is slightly strange. The WBSIC which is supposed to enforce the RTI Act in West Bengal itself does not know the right PIO ! Then how can a ordinary citizen know which PIO is the correct one ?

1. Under Section 6(3) your application should have been transferred within 5 days. That is the first ground for Second Appeal.

2. 35 days start from the date the application was received by the PIO in the WBSIC.

I suggest that just sit back and relax.
When you get the reply from the PIO, you have the above 2 grounds for filing First Appeal.
You also have a ground for your Second Appeal with the WBSIC.
During the Second Appeal make a plea for WBSIC to impose penalty on itself.

Please do not laugh.

There is a instance when the CIC has penalised "itself".
Now looking for the link...will post it later.

[sidmis]

During the Second Appeal make a plea for WBSIC to impose penalty on itself. Please do not laugh.
There is a instance when the CIC has penalised "itself".

Hello Karira,
How can WB SIC impose penalty on itself?
It' the PIO who will be penalised.

Isn't it true that PIO and PA are separate

Sidmis

[colnrkurup]

Firstly in your present case please do not split the hairs too much on 35 days affair if your aim is to get the information only. The period of 30 days will commence from the date of receipt of your application by the correct PIO. Secondly I think what sidmis meant is that "the WB SIC's impossing penalty on his own PIO ". PIO of WB SIC is not a public authority.

[vashisthvivek]

I agree with colnrkurup Sir. The period of 30 days will commence from the date of receipt of application by the correct PIO. I do not agree with the Karia sir that the application should have been transferred with 5 days. The provision of S.6(3) applies only when the application has been made wrongly to other Public Authority, but not in case of information commission. Secondly, when the PIO receives the application, the period only 30 days is allowed and not 35 days.
Wish you all HAPPY DIWALI

[karira]

vashisthvivek,

1. Section 6(3) comes into play since linardni gave the RTI Application
to the WBSIC, whihc is also a PA as defined in RTI.
The PIO of WBSIC should have transfereed the application within 5 days to
the Youth Services Department.
2. Nowhere in the RTI Act, is it stated that if a application is submitted to the
CIC or SIC then Section 6(3) will not be applicable.
3. 30 days allowed for reply normally + 5 days under Section 6(3) = 35 days
35 days from date of receipt by PIO in WBSIC.

[vashisthvivek]

Sir,
I think the application was not forwarded to the PIO of the Information Commission, but to the Commission, who is the apex body under the RTI Act. The powers and functions of the Information Commission have been discussed under S.18. There is no time limit on the Commissions to forward the application to the concerned PA. Similarly, there is no time limit prescribed for the commssion to decide the appeal.
The functions of the Information Commission as an apex body under the RTI Act is different and its functions as a Public Authority are different. To make the things clear, I am citing an example. Every High Cout is a Public Authority. However, it does not mean that one files application under the RTI Act in the registry of the Court and expects that the application will be forwarded to the concerned PA within a period of 5 days. The case will be different, if the application under the Act is sent to the PIO of the Court. In this case the PIO of the HC is under obligation to transfer the application to the concerned PA within 5 days.
Therefore, when the application is filed with the commission, there is no time limit prescribed under the Act, within which the Commission will have to forward the application to the concerned PA.

[snkmoorthy]

sir, the 30 days period would commence from the date of receipt of the petition by the correct PIO.however, nothing would result from the appeal petition as the commission has admitted its error. 'whether it is punishable is a moot point. i know of no precedents on this point.

[vashisthvivek]

As per the details / points submitted vide post at No. #7, the Commission can not be punished.

[karira]

Originally Posted by vashisthvivek

As per the details / points submitted vide post at No. #7, the Commission can not be punished.

I do not agree with you for the following reasons:

1. SIC is a PA as defined under the RTI Act.
2. Under Section 5(1) every PA is to appoint a PIO.
3. Therefore WBSIC should have a PIO.
4. If linardni made a application which said right at the top:
"Application under RTI Act 2005"
(or something to that effect)
the application should have gone to the PIO of the SIC and not to
anyone else in the SIC (like Registrar, IC, Secretary, etc...)
5. I am sure that the application did not say anything to the effect like:
First Appeal under section 19
Complaint under Section 18
etc.
So why does it go to anyone else but the PIO of WBSIC ?
6. If the PIO gets a application which seeks information whose subject matter is closely related to some other PA, he is obligated to transfer the application under section 6(3) within 5 days of the RTI Act and inform the applicant accordingly.
7. If he does not do that, then he is liable for penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act, because in this case it was purely the fault of the PIO that the application was transferred to the incorrect address as well as the fact that it was not answered within the specified time limit because of this reason...so the fault lies with the PIO of the SIC).

Even some SIC's send the Second Appeals and Complaints which pertain to the jurisdiction of CIC and are wrongly addressed/submitted to the SIC. Please see:

http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_05012008_08.pdf
In the absence of the Complainant, the Commission heard the Respondents and noted that the RTI-application of 5 July 2007 was filed with the State Information Commission which forwarded the application to the Central Information Commission – which means that the Regional Passport Office, Chennai, does not have the RTI-application till date.

http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_05012008_10.pdf
Shri Malik Salamat Hussain of Mumbai filed an RTI-application with the Public Information Officer, Passport Office, Patna, on 30 May 2007 alongwith the first Appeal dated 30 July 2007 to the Bihar State Information Commission, for seeking information regarding the non-issue of passport. The State Information Commission vide its letter dated 8 August 2007 forwarded his RTI-application to the Central Information Commission.

Therefore, if the SIC's can "transfer" even the Second Appeals and Complaints to the correct SIC/CIC (for which there is no legal provision in the RTI Act 2005), then why shouldn't they transfer the RTI application to the correct PIO as per Section 6(3) (for whch there is a provision in the Act) ?

[karira]

Originally Posted by sidmis

Hello Karira,
How can WB SIC impose penalty on itself?
It' the PIO who will be penalised.

Isn't it true that PIO and PA are separate

Sidmis

Sorry sidmis, wrong word used.
If WBSIC cannot penalise "itself", it can atleast order "itself" to pay compensation if it violates the RTI Act 2005.

The CIC has done that in one instance when it "violated" the RTI Act:

http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/1144-c...pensation.html

In the interest of transparency and creating confidence in the minds of the citizens, the CIC's/SIC's themselves should first practice what they preach.