Failure to comply with 6(3)

[jiwateshwar]

A very good way to sign off your RTI applications:-

If you feel that above requested information does not pertain to your department then please follow the provisions of Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005. As I expect to appeal any denial, please specify the Appellant Authority's Office and address to which an appeal should be sent.Thanks you in Advance for your attention to this matter.

Found the above in an application put up by jalandharguy, Really great as most CPIO's fail to forward the application under 6(3) and the SIC/CIC do not punish them for this. Such CPIO claim immunity by stating that RTI is still in infancy and they were not aware of the above provision of RTI Act.

Does anyone know of a judgment where the CPIO was punished to have failed in complying with 6(3)? Kindly put up links.

[DineshK]

But in case a PIO dont forward your application to next authority, he has to answer and stand responsible which no PIO will do.

[abhijeet]

In one case a PIO had sent one application to another PIO under section 6(3) after 55 days on receiving the RTI application ; that too after 20 days of submission of 1st appeal . PIO was asked by another applicant , who observing it in a news paper submitted RTI application and wanted to know the reason of the delay in transferring the said application. The PIO furnished that it was due to the fact that most of the staff members were busy out side in election duty ; so it was justified and no penalty was imposed. ( The point is there was no election in West Bengal in 2007, in any case how many days were spent by "the most of the concerned office staffs " for this election duty , during a period of eight months ?)
In response to another query the PIO was pleased to inform that the information could not be provided due to the same reason even within a period of eight months and he claimed that it was justified and no penalty was imposed.
I don't know how the SIC agreed that it was justified , if that be the case, that one RTI application could not be attended to properly due to the reason as stated by the PIO and no penalty was imposed . I think after going through the news the Hon'ble SIC could have enquired the matter and proper action sould have been taken "Suo moto "
But we are really helpless here and this is the way how RTI applicants are being treated by the Govt. Department .

[karira]

In the case of CIC, "no time", "heavy work load", "colleagues being absent", "election duty", "shortage of staff", "no training", etc. are not valid grounds for non levying of penalty.

If the PIO does not transfer the application within 5 days under Sec 6(3), please "pray" for penalty against this first PIO also under Sec 20(1) and disciplinary action under Sec 20(2) for "obstruction in furnishing of information", arguing that the PIO's delay in transferring the application under Sec 6(3) was a obstruction in the applicants process of getting information.

[DineshK]

Few months back I filed an application in Ministry of Urban Development for list of Unauthorised and authorised colonies in Delhi which was forwarded to more then 5 various departments each one sending a copy to me.

And surprisingly I received the list within 32 days !!

[jiwateshwar]

Originally Posted by karira

In the case of CIC, "no time", "heavy work load", "colleagues being absent", "election duty", "shortage of staff", "no training", etc. are not valid grounds for non levying of penalty.

If the PIO does not transfer the application within 5 days under Sec 6(3), please "pray" for penalty against this first PIO also under Sec 20(1) and disciplinary action under Sec 20(2) for "obstruction in furnishing of information", arguing that the PIO's delay in transferring the application under Sec 6(3) was a obstruction in the applicants process of getting information.

What would one claim in an appeal where the following happens
1. First CPIO forwarded the application to Second CPIO.
2. Second CPIO despite having the information claims that he doesnt have it, and forwards the application back to the First CPIO asking him to approach a third CPIO.
3. The First CPIO forwards the application to the Third CPIO who doesnt even bother to reply.
4. On non-receipt of any reply from the Third CPIO the First CPIO issues him a warning that the 35 day time period has come to an end and that the Third CPIO shall be liable for action.
5. The Third CPIO ignores this warning too, and doesnt reply.
6. The First CPIO then calmly claims that it is not obligatory on his part to locate the information. Together with this he send proof that the information is actually located with the Second CPIO (a letter of correspondence between the Second CPIO and a senior officer).

It may please be noted that the First CPIO has complete access to the departments of Second and Third CPIOs and they are his junior officers.

[karira]

Jiwateshwar,

Is it the same PA or a different PA ?

If same PA, there is no question of any transfer or forwarding of RTI application.
It is the duty of the first CPIO to collect the information from other CPIO's and provide it to the applicant.

If it is a different PA, and application has been transferred to different PIO's in different PA's then straight away go for a complaint under Sec 18.

[jiwateshwar]

Im not to sure if we could consider it as the same PA. The following is the setup

First CPIO is CPIO of Police Headquarters
Second CPIO is CPIO for the Crime Branch
Third CPIO is CPIO of a Specific Police Station

[karira]

In this case, it can be considered as separate PA's
(by the way, are any two located in the same building).

File a First Appeal with all three FAA's.

[jiwateshwar]

Nope. None of them are located in the same building. However, they all have a common FAA.

[opsharma]

CIC Decision 71/ICBB/2006 Dated 18 August 2006

" In this connection, it is necessary to clarify certain aspects of the provisions of the RTI
Act, in view of the stand taken by the CPIO that each CPIO is a separate public authority and
information within his jurisdiction has to be obtained only from him by an applicant. Even
though, in terms of Section 5(1) & (2) of RTI Act, a public authority could designate as many
CPIOs/ACPIOs, the Act does not confer any specific jurisdiction in respect of each such officer
either in terms of geographical or subject wise or the like. The Act also does not prescribe that
each CPIO is a separate public authority by himself. He is only a part of the public authority
which has designated him as such. The object of designation of many CPIOs/ACPIOs is only
with the view that the citizens have a proximity of approach. Once a citizen applies to a CPIO of
a public authority, irrespective of where and with whom the information is available within the
same public authority, it is the duty of that CPIO to furnish the information sough for in relation
to that public authority, if necessary by obtaining the same from the concerned CPIO with whom
the information sought may be available. There is no scope to either ask the citizen to approach
another CPIO within the same public authority or send the request for information to another
CIPO with in the same public authority. Only in a case, where the information sought is held by
another public authority, other than the one which has designated him as CPIO, he can transfer
the request to that public authority for furnishing information to the applicant direct (Section
6(3)). In the present case, unfortunately, even the letter of this Commission seeking for her
comments had been forwarded to the Director of Postal Services Bhopal asking him to send his
comments directly to this Commission. When this Commission seeks the comments of a CPIO it
is her/his responsibility to send the comments even if were to be collected from another CPIO,
as this Commission cannot deal with multiple CPIOs within the same public authority on a
single appeal. This is to be noted for future."

DOPT Office Memo No.1/14/2008-IR dated 28th July ,2008 is also relevant,subject to logical interpretation and application.
Post 6, though is a true picture of attitudnal problem as is generally faced in reality.