Originally Posted by chanda_s
Chanda has pointed out that the two are separate PA's.
Therefore no reason to bring in Section 5(4).
The first PIO rightfully transferred the application to Mr Chanda under Section 6(3).
At most, he could have asked the applicant to redo the Postal Order and provided the address of the new PIO (since the jurisdiction has been recently changed and reorganisation has taken place, probably the public does not know this).
Chanda, the following decision of the CIC is crystal clear in this regard and gives a good suggestion to come out of your impasse:
Under Section 6 (3) of the Act, the Public Authority to which thetaken had been submitted to the President’s Secretariat by the Ministry of
application is made shall transfer the application or such part which may be
appropriate to that other Public Authority which either (i) holds the information,
or (ii) is more closely connected with the subject matter of the application. The
President’s Secretariat has correctly held that even though the report on action
Petroleum & Natural Gas, the President’s Secretariat did not qualify underrequired to be transferred under the law and not refused.
either of the sub Section of Section 6 (3) to be the principal public authority
dealing in the matter which was rightly construed to be the Ministry of
Petroleum & Natural Gas. Therefore, while we agree with the contention of the
PIO, President’s Secretariat that the application merited transfer, no transfer
has in fact been made, with the PIO simply advising the applicant “to approach
the Public information Officer of the Ministry o Petroleum & Natural Gas”. This
has been done with no regard to the proviso of Section 6 (3) of the RTI Act,
which requires that the transfer of application pursuant to this sub-Section shall
be made as soon as practicable but in no case later than five days from the
date of receipt of the application. In this case, the advice (and no transfer) took
place on 16-3-2006 i.e. 15 days after the application was submitted to the
public authority and no effort has been made to explain this delay. Section 6
(3) requires the transfer of the application to the concerned public authority, not
simply advice to the applicant to make a fresh application to that other
authority. It is understandable that the DD would have been returned, because
it was made in the name of Accounts Officer, President’s Secretariat and
therefore, uncashable by the requisite public authority, although it would have
been possible for the President’s Secretariat to encash the DD and transfer the
funds, if required to the concerned Ministry. However, the application itself was
I think, based on the above, you can give the information to the applicant and at the same time, send the Postal Order to your counterpart and request him to transfer the funds to your PA.