
09-08-2007, 08:09 AM
|
 | | | | Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Secunderabad
Posts: 4,742
Rep Power: 59 Provided Answers: 22 | |
Re: Can I & II appellant authority have power of review of their own order? | | Quote:
Originally Posted by arunonline As per section 10 (2) (e), there is a power with the Public Information Officer to review his own orders. Is there such power of review with the first and second Appellate authorities? | Arun,
I think you are misinterpreting the Section 10(2)(e). | 2. | Where access is granted to a part of the record under sub-section (1), the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall give a notice to the applicant, informing— |
............... | e. | his or her rights with respect to review of the decision regarding non-disclosure of part of the information, the amount of fee charged or the form of access provided, including the particulars of the senior officer specified under sub-section (1) of section 19 or the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, time limit, process and any other form of access.
The above does not mean that the PIO has the power to review his own decision.
It only means that if partial information is given, the PIO must inform the applicant, his/her rights to seek review of the decision regarding non disclosure...........etc etc etc...
=======
Maneesh,
There is no question or scope under the RTI Act for Power to give additional information.
If any PIO gives "additional" information, that means that the original information given was "incomplete" or "false" or "misleading". In that case, the applicant should have gone in for First Appeal under section 18 (1) (e).
In this connection, I have a experience in a similar situation:
An applicant made a RTI application to the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise in Hyderabad, asking for various types of information. The PIO replied with all the information correctly, but added at the bottom of the reply "In case the applicant needs further clarification, he may approach the Central Board of Excise and Customs located at........... New Delhi (or something to that effect...I don't remember the exact words).
The applicant went for first appeal under Section 18(1)(e) stating that the information given was: - "incomplete" (if it was complete, why was he being asked to go somewhere else ?), - "misleading" (the PIO himself was not sure about the information he was giving and
passing the buck to someone else and disowning responsibility for the information given)
- "false"
The officer for first appeal upheld the appeal on ALL the three counts. |
|