The
RTI Act 2005 Section 7 (1) causes CPIO to furnish the reply.
No other person can sign as per the act to qoute,
7 (1)
Subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a request under section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9:to unqoute.
This is affirmed by
CIC in its judgment
http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_03072006_2.pdf
Relevent Portion of the Order reads,
The appellant’s grievance that decisions are conveyed by other than the CPIO
and the appellate authority is well founded. Under the RTI Act, it is responsibility of
the designated CPIO to furnish the information sought for by a citizen. Considering
the fact, that CPIO is punishable under Section 20 of the Act with fine, it is necessary
that the decision taken by the CPIO is communicated under his signature. Likewise,
while disposing of an appeal, the appellate authority discharges a quasi judicial
function and as such his decisions must bear his signature to indicate that he has
applied his mind in taking the decision. The usual office procedure has no place in the
matters of RTI Act.
For denying information the reason has to be specifed along with the relevent section of
RTI which grants exemption.