i have already appealed for the first time but not in the format and without the fees...now should I appeal again or go for the second appeal to the SIC. I have seen those URLs.... but this is my question.
Since you have skipped the prescribed format, your application
is most likely to be rejected. You have to apply again in the proper format.
You may do that now or the 1st AA may ask you for the same while rejecting your application.
You cannot skip this and go for 2nd appeal to the SIC.
I am surprised see that the APIO has responded to you instead of the PIO.
Who has signed the letter?
As per rule the reply from PIO must also mention about the Appeal procedure.
As kushal has rightly said you must lodge a complain with Orissa SIC.
Kushal, It should be SIC not SCIC.
Please see the following decision of the CIC:
The appellant has complained that the APIO, rather than the PIO had furnished
him the reply dated 8.11.05, which did not carry the name of the designated PIO, nor did
it mention the name of the appellate authority before whom the appellant could file his
appeal against the order of the PIO. It is the appellant’s case that the APIO’s
responsibility under Section 5(2) of the RTI Act is limited only to receiving the request
for information or an appeal and to transmit the same to the appropriate PIO or to the
Central Information Commissioner as the case may be. The APIO cannot take on himself
the duties and the liabilities of a PIO as contained in Section 5, sub section (1), (3) (5)
and Sections 6 and Section 7 of the Act. It is the contention of the appellant that the
failure of the APIO to mention the name of the PIO in his order dated 8.11.05 was a
serious error which was further compounded by the APIO’s misjudgement in
unauthorisedly stepping into the shoes of the PIO.
From the stand-point of the technicality of the RTI Act, the appellant, no doubt,
has a point. The Act has surely limited the APIO’s role only to receiving applications for
information and appeals and transmitting the same to their proper destination. His
responsibilities are not co-extensive with the PIO’s.
We would, however, like to limit our examination of the case only to the point
whether this action of the APIO created any special disability for the appellant in
exercising his rights under the Act.
We agree with the appellant that in the normal course an applicant for information
has a right to receive the reply from the PIO and the PIO only. We, however, see no legal
difficulty in the PIO using the services of an APIO to transmit the former’s decision on
the application for information through the APIO. In our understanding, this will not lead
to any miscarriage of justice or place undue restriction on an information seeker’s rights
under the RTI Act. We, however, like to caution that any order issued by a APIO on
behalf of PIO must clearly state that the former was only transmitting the orders of latter
and should also state the name and the designation of the PIO on whose behalf the
AAPIO might be acting. This will enable the information seeker to bring against the PIO
any charge of delay etc. if that happens to be the case.