Quote:
Originally Posted by vashisthvivek As per the details / points submitted vide post at No. #7, the Commission can not be punished. |
I do not agree with you for the following reasons:
1.
SIC is a PA as defined under the
RTI Act.
2. Under Section 5(1) every PA is to appoint a
PIO.
3. Therefore WBSIC should have a
PIO.
4. If linardni made a application which said right at the top:
"Application under
RTI Act 2005"
(or something to that effect)
the application should have gone to the
PIO of the
SIC and not to
anyone else in the
SIC (like Registrar, IC, Secretary, etc...)
5. I am sure that the application did not say anything to the effect like:
First Appeal under section 19
Complaint under Section 18
etc.
So why does it go to anyone else but the
PIO of WBSIC ?
6. If the
PIO gets a application which seeks information whose subject matter is closely related to some other PA, he is obligated to transfer the application under section 6(3) within 5 days of the
RTI Act and inform the applicant accordingly.
7. If he does not do that, then he is liable for penalty under Section 20 of the
RTI Act, because in this case it was purely the fault of the
PIO that the application was transferred to the incorrect address as well as the fact that it was not answered within the specified time limit because of this reason...so the fault lies with the
PIO of the
SIC).
Even some
SIC's send the Second Appeals and Complaints which pertain to the jurisdiction of
CIC and are wrongly addressed/submitted to the
SIC. Please see:
http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_05012008_08.pdf In the absence of the Complainant, the Commission heard the Respondents and noted that the RTI-application of 5 July 2007 was filed with the State Information Commission which forwarded the application to the Central Information Commission – which means that the Regional Passport Office, Chennai, does not have the RTI-application till date.
http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_05012008_10.pdf Shri Malik Salamat Hussain of Mumbai filed an RTI-application with the Public Information Officer, Passport Office, Patna, on 30 May 2007 alongwith the first Appeal dated 30 July 2007 to the Bihar State Information Commission, for seeking information regarding the non-issue of passport. The State Information Commission vide its letter dated 8 August 2007 forwarded his RTI-application to the Central Information Commission.
Therefore, if the
SIC's can "transfer" even the Second Appeals and Complaints to the correct
SIC/
CIC (for which there is no legal provision in the
RTI Act 2005), then why shouldn't they transfer the
RTI application to the correct
PIO as per Section 6(3) (for whch there is a provision in the Act) ?