Appellant dies before hearing

[abhijeet]

One RTI application was submitted on 29/05 /07. Without receiving proper reply from the SPIO, Dept. of Co operation, West Bengal ( most Cooperative )1st appeal was submitted on 06.11.2007 . The SPIO of Co operation sent a letter on 30.05 2008 requesting the appellant " to appear before the AA on 11.06.2008 at 12.00 noon " for appeal hearing.
It is to be mentioned here that the applicant died on 31.12 2007. This is the manner how much cooperative is this SPIO.

[colnrkurup]

When the applicant dies, his request for information cease to exist. The CIC(Management) Regulation 2007 cater for this eventuality. But I am not aware of any SIC issuing any such directive.

There appears some mistakes in the dates shown above. Viz.,

RTI Application submitted on 29-05-2007
First appeal submitted on 06-11-2007
Applicant dies on 31-12-2007
AA's hering fixed for 11-06-2008

How come the first appeal is on 06-11-2007 ?

[ganpat1956]

Colonel Sir, the chronology is correct. It is only a hearing fixed by the FAA on the first appeal without knowing that the appellant had expired in the interim period.

[colnrkurup]

The application was submitted on 29-5-08. First appeal made on 6-11-07 This is beyond the time limit. The appeal is barred by limitation. In normal case the FAA should have rejected on plea of limitation. My doubt is how the FAA called the applicant for hearing though he is at liberty to accept it beyond the time limit. If he is so cooperative, why did'nt he order provision of information. There is something unusual.

[abhijeet]

Respected Colonel Sir,

There was nothing unusal. The point is that I did not mention the date of receiving the " reply" sent by the SPIO. That was received on 12.10.2007. So the 1st appeal on receipt of the reply from the SPIO , was submitted well within the period of one month i.e on 06.11.2007. so, there is no ambiguity.
Now I would like to inform you the second episode, if you allow me to do so.
Some other person submitted almost the same queries to the concerned SPIO og Govt. of West Bengal . Please go through the following.
Another applicant submitted same set of queries to the Cooperation
Department on 13.11.2007 . As usual it was transferred to the
Cooperation Directorate, that too only after submission of the 1st
appeal on 31.12.2008. This time the PIO of Coop. Directorate correctly
returned it to the previous (Coop). Dept. ; as the matter was related
with Coop. Department and enquiry was conducted by one officer of
Coop. Department . The matter has been clearly explained in the
Memo dated 17.01.08, in which the SPIO of Coop. Directorate mentioned
–"It appears that the information sought… relates to an enquiry
conducted by an officer of Cooperation Department and may only be
provided from your end."
On 17.02 2008 , The applicant sent one reminder to the concerned SPIO
of the Cooperation Department , enclosing a copy of the 1st appeal for
furnishing direct, specific and proper information at an early date.
On 27th February, 08 the SPIO of Coop. Dept . provided 'information'
in an enclosed statement , which was not signed by anybody, though in
the statement it was mentioned twice that ' It is not possible for
undersigned ' The applicant failed to understand who was the
undersigned and as such once again wrote a letter to the PIO
mentioning that---- Neither the signature of the PIO nor the
designation was provided with the reply received in the enclosure .Was
it not possible for any officer (Why not PIO) to sign the reply
provided ?
The SPIO sent the same set of reply with enclosure , but this time the
enclosed reply was attested by one officer of the department. But
question still remained who was the so called ' undersigned' ? Whose
statement was provided in that unsigned but attested enclosure , is
yet to be ascertained.
Now I will not examine what type of reply was furnished in response to those queries, as that will be subject matter of anther thread, if you are intersted to have that experience at all.
That is a nice example of "dedicated misdeed" on the part of the Govt. Department , mostly which are always in favour of corrupt persons-(must be influential )

[abhijeet]

I did not observe properly that the details of the 1st applicant's experience was not furnished in this thread. The person who submitted previously almost the same queries regarding certain corruption of a Govt. officer and the enquiry was conducted only after intervention of CM's office; the Cooperation Department arranged the enquiry only to save that corrupt officer ( Thread : Corrupt officer escapes punishment ) etc. This may be interesting and useful infornation for the members.

The applicant received the copy of that 'concocted' enquiry report in the 1st week of May, 2007.At the end of the month (29/05/2007) the same applicant asked for certain information in connection with that 'enquiry report ' received . The applicant specifically mentioned under the subject matter of information : Validity of the comments made by the Enquiry officer in this regard as received vide your letter dated 03.05.2007.
Relevant page of attested copy of that report was enclosed with the application.
On 25th June, 2007 APIO of that Department transferred that application dated 29.05.07 to another Govt. Department , with a request ' to furnish information point wise to the applicant, immediately , preferably within seven days '
Now it should be mentioned here that the matter was related with the Govt. Department , where the RTI application was submitted and it was clearly mentioned in that application.
So , why it was sent to another Department ?
Another pertinent point is that as per 6(3) of RTI Act ' transfer of an application ..shall be made as soon as practicable but in no case later than five days from the date of receipt of the application.'
But in the instant case it was transferred later than 26 days after receiving of it. Why ?
The applicant sent one reminder to the SPIO of both the departments on 17/08/07 and 21/08/07 respectively and the letter was addressed to the Secretary, SIC, who previously directed concerned State Public Information Officers to ' be more attentive in this regard in future correspondences in respect of RTI matter.'

The SPIO of the Govt Department, where the application was transferred , furnished the information dated 29/09/07, which was received on 12.10.2007 .
Most interesting point is that the SPIO "informed" – Record is not available with this office ., with respect to 5 queries out of six asked for.
The applicant, on receiving this information submitted 1st appeal on 06.11.2007 .
Recently the same applicant was requested by the SPIO to appear before the appellate authority on 11.06.2008.
Let us see what RTI act means regarding 1st appeal. Under 19(6) ------An appeal.. shall be disposed of within thirty days of the receipt of the appeal or within such extended period not exceeding a total of forty-five days from the of filing thereof, as the case may be, for reasons to be recorded in writing. It is need less to mention here that no reason was provided for the delay. But I would like to mention here with a sorrow and…….
that the SPIO came to know that the concerned applicant had already died !
This is the way how the RTI matters are being dealt with by some SPIOs of the West Bengal.