Disregarding complaints

[digal]

Dear reader,

If you are a PIO, you will be delighted to read the recent orders of ICs, who not only blink away provisions of section 18 of the RTI ACT, but also condone your haughty posture towards RTI applicants.

The following decisions clearly reveals that ICs have a common proforma to fill the blank & pass orders indiscriminately.

http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_deci...91_M_82632.pdf

http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_deci...82_M_82631.pdf

http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_deci...32_M_82630.pdf

http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_deci...12_M_82629.pdf

http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_deci...11_M_82628.pdf

http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_deci...63_M_82452.pdf

http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_AD_C_2011_001749_M_82672.pdf

etc, etc.....

When the RTI application is ignored by you, then by your Boss, Applicant has no other option but to complain u/s 18. He/she counts day after day longing for a strong action against you, so that other errant PIOs get appropriate message.

After 1.5 to 2 years of waiting, poor applicant gets such type order- "PIO should furnish a reply...."
Don't worry, you may ignore this time too. u/s 20, if at all IC acts this time , your PA may fight the case at HC.

So be cheerful.

[karira]

Sponsorer

Complaints is one thing.......but what does one do if after getting a first appeal order, non compliance by CPIO of the FAAs order, one approaches the CIC in second appeal and the CIC remands it back to the FAA :

http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_deci...43_M_82659.pdf

4. In his second appeal filed before the Commission, it is the contention of
the appellant that even after passing of the order by the FAA dated 5.7.2011,
directing the CPIO to provide the information sought by the appellant in respect
of Point 3(b)(iii), 3(b)(iv), 3(b)(v) and 3(b)(vi), complete and correct information
has not been provided to him by the CPIO in his letter dated 12.8.2011. The
CPIO on the other hand submits that he had complied with the directions of the
FAA.
5. In view of the dissatisfaction expressed by the appellant with the replies
provided to him by the CPIO, the matter is remitted back to the FAA with the
direction to provide information by passing a speaking order in respect of Point
3(b)(iii), 3(b)(iv), 3(b)(v) and 3(b)(vi), by treating the second appeal filed before
the Commission as first appeal, within three weeks of receipt of this order.

[Prajna]

same can be seen here also

[Yogi M. P. Singh]

Hon'ble members. Information seeker seeks seeks information under subsection 1 of section 6 of R.T.I. Act 2005. Aggrieved by the decision of PIO, information seeker files first appeal under subsection 1 of section 19 of R.T.I. Act 2005. F.A.A. passes cryptic order not complied by PIO. Matter was broughtup before information commission under subsection 3 of section 19 of R.T.I. Act 2005. Information commission remits the case to F.A.A. Court and asks the F.A.A. court to pass a speaking order instead cryptic order. Thus F.A.A. may do the retrospection of case. Here your friend want to quote as Hon'ble Apex court quoted in A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 12 "A remedial act is not necessarily retrospective, it taks effect prospectively unless it has been given retrospective effect by express terms or necessary intendment. I don't think that information commission has power to made it practictice in routine way. Even at this time case shall have been processed by information commission.