CIC has recently passed an order remanding the Second Appeal back to the FAA. The matter is:
Applicant applied for information under RTI on 6-11-2006
No reply received
First Appeal made on 14-12-2006
FAA orders PIO to supply information. FAA order dated 12-01-2007
PIO supplies incomplete information on 12-03-2007.
Applicant files Second Appeal with CIC and CIC orders:
The applicant has approached this Commission submitting, inter-alia, that
in spite of the orders passed by the first Appellate Authority, the information
provided by on 12.3.’07 is incomplete. He has however, not taken recourse to a
1st appeal against this response allowed to him u/s 19 (1) of the RTI Act
Because the 1st appellate authority has not addressed the questions
of appellant, which are of direct concern to his public authority and because
appellant has pleaded no ground for making a direct complaint to us u/s 18 (1)
(e), the Commission has decided to treat this application as 1st appeal and
remand this appeal to the Additional Commissioner (HQ), Municipal Corporation
of Delhi, Town Hall, Delhi who is directed to dispose of the appeal of Shri K.P.
Jain within ten working days from the date of receipt of this decision, under
intimation to Shri Pankaj Shreyaskar, Jt Registrar, Central Information
Commission. If not satisfied with the information provided on his 1st appeal,
complainant Shri K.P. Jain will be free to move a 2nd appeal before us as per Sec
1. How many times does CIC want the applicant to file First Appeals ?
2. Is CIC avoiding levying penalty on the PIO by doing this ?
I can definitely see that this is a start of a "passing the buck" process.
Interested in knowing the opinion of the members since I am sure I will be facing a similar situation soon:
Wonderful ! !!. Now I have no doubt that we are in cucumber city.I don't think the CIC is vested with any power to convert a complaint under Section 18 competently filed to a First Appeal and remand it to the AA. In this cituation the correct action of the CIC should have been to summon the AA and sort out the issue during the hearing. That is what the Act dtiulate. It is high time to stop this practice.
Last edited by Shrawan Pathak; 17-04-08 at 08:59 PM.
Re. CIC should be shown the door...
only activists should judge the genunity of any reply
as the members of RTI,the discussion should relate to the pros and cons of the decision , and the Act it self
The members should understand the difference between sec 18 and sec 19 of the act and the rules framed there under.that is to say the difference between complaint and
2nd appeal, both are to CIC. If it is u/sec 19 it should always be against 1st appeal.
The FAA is senior to the CPIO and can able to dispose the application for information relating to the same dept [if not colluded] and if the information get at the level of FAA it is a big relief.
In a recent circuler the govt asked the FAAs to complain against the CPIOs to the higher ups in the dept who have direct control over them to take action if the CPIO does disobey its directions.
The decision should be commented in relation to sec 18 and 19 of the act.members comment for action of CIC and to penalise the CPIOS ,in my thought, give no advantage to the discussion onthis floor.
i want to remain as member but not as judge.