Another "toss it back" decision from CIC

[karira]

There seems to be no end to the "tossing back" by CIC.

http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/PB-15052008-17.pdf

RTI Application date: 18 Aug 2006
CPIO's reply date: Not indicated in CIC order
First Appeal date: 15 Jan 2007
Response from FAA: NO RESPONSE
Second Appeal date: 12 Sep 2007
CIC calls for comments from PA: 22 Nov 2007
PA's comments date: 17 Dec 2007
Appellants rejoinder date: 16 Jan 2008
Date of CIC order: 15 May 2008

And the order of IC Padma Balasubramanian is:

"I have gone though the RTI request, CPIO reply as well as comments of the Public Authority. I find that information in respect of point 1 to 5 and 7 has been denied under various Sub-Sections of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. I have also noted that the first appeal filed by the appellant is still pending with the AA. I direct the AA to dispose of the same within 15 days of the receipt of this direction. In case, the appellant is not satisfied with the decision of the AA, he can approach the Commission again, as per the provisions of the RTI Act. On the above lines the appeal is disposed of."

Pertinent to note that the applicant has already waited for 21 months after filing the RTI Application and still no result !

No wonder applicants will behave in the CIC like this one:

http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/4028-central-information-commission-directs-public-information-officer-file-case-against-appellant.html

PS: Manoj, I am sure this is indefensible, even by you !

PPS: Where did the "comments from the Public Authority" come from ?
Only CPIO and the AA can offer comments. There is no provision in the RTI Act for the Public Authority to offer comments.

[karira]

May 15, 2008, seems to be "toss back day" for IC Padma Balasubramanian.

There are several of these "toss back" decisions.

Here are some more:

http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/PB-15052008-16.pdf

http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/PB-15052008-05.pdf

http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/PB-15052008-04.pdf

[Anil Sood]

I had also got a order from IC PB which was not meant for me. But the order was sent to me. It took 3 telephone calls and one personal visit to inform them that they should send the order to the right persons. The original order is still with me.

[taurus]

Before remitting back one must see how long the applicant has waited and with what result. I wonder who all need sensitisation of the Act.

[navdeep]

It is pertinent to mention here that since First Appellate Authority had not replied to First Appeal knowingly, remanding back the case to FAA is strictly against law of natural justice. Why FAA has been given opportunity again to deny information on vague grounds and RTI applicant harassed again. Once the case reached to Honorable CIC, I think it must be decided there and then only.

Thanks
Navdeep

Originally Posted by karira

There seems to be no end to the "tossing back" by CIC.

http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/PB-15052008-17.pdf

RTI Application date: 18 Aug 2006
CPIO's reply date: Not indicated in CIC order
First Appeal date: 15 Jan 2007
Response from FAA: NO RESPONSE
Second Appeal date: 12 Sep 2007
CIC calls for comments from PA: 22 Nov 2007
PA's comments date: 17 Dec 2007
Appellants rejoinder date: 16 Jan 2008
Date of CIC order: 15 May 2008

And the order of IC Padma Balasubramanian is:

"I have gone though the RTI request, CPIO reply as well as comments of the Public Authority. I find that information in respect of point 1 to 5 and 7 has been denied under various Sub-Sections of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. I have also noted that the first appeal filed by the appellant is still pending with the AA. I direct the AA to dispose of the same within 15 days of the receipt of this direction. In case, the appellant is not satisfied with the decision of the AA, he can approach the Commission again, as per the provisions of the RTI Act. On the above lines the appeal is disposed of."

Pertinent to note that the applicant has already waited for 21 months after filing the RTI Application and still no result !

No wonder applicants will behave in the CIC like this one:

http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/4028-central-information-commission-directs-public-information-officer-file-case-against-appellant.html

PS: Manoj, I am sure this is indefensible, even by you !

PPS: Where did the "comments from the Public Authority" come from ?
Only CPIO and the AA can offer comments. There is no provision in the RTI Act for the Public Authority to offer comments.

[jiwateshwar]

Something very important I would like to bring to the attention of members of this forum. Whenever you fail to get a hearing from the FAA, then do not file a simple second appeal. File a appeal+complaint.

How to do that?
In the grounds of appeal include reasons given under ss18(1) and ss19(1) both. Very clearly mention in your appeal that the FAA has acted with malafide intent in denying you a hearing. When the FAA is made a respondent, the case can not be sent back to the FAA.

[karira]

Besides what Jiwateshwar said, please BOLDLY title the first page as:

Second Appeal under Section........ CUM Complaint under Section.....

Please also see:

Catch 22 situation......need help

(at least the initial posts ...because after that the thread somewhat veers off the main topic)