As rightly pointed out by you, it mentions two AAs--Shri Vivek Bharadwaj and Shri Debanjan Datta for a single PIO Shri Paritosh Sengupta. However Shri Datta alone is concerned with WEBEL.
Now how do you like the idea of sending a third appeal, this time to Shri Bharadwaj?
Yes that's what I did in fact. With advices from master minds like you and other RTI forum members, I'm getting enlightened a lot. So I've forwarded three copies of the same application to the three Appellate Authorities. Moreover, equipped with a few spare copies of the appeal I'm in search if any other AA name pops up. He should also to be hit with the same appeal, isn't it?
I had never used the name of PIO or AA in the initial application and First Appeals. Instead I have been addressing " State Public Information Officer of ...Public Authority " and " AA of the concerned PublicAuthority ". Till now I have not encountered the problems like the one possed. Of cource when I receive the replies Ihave been using tghe name as stated by them in first Appelas and the name of AA in second appeals lest they excape the responsibility even after a transfer. It will ease the SIC when he choose to impose penalty to the delinquent.
colnrkurup's suggestion is very valid.
Whenever addressing any Government officer (irrespective of whether it is in connection to RTI or otherwise) always try to use the "designation" and never the individuals name.
Officers will come and go , but the Public Authority remains.
It is the duty of the PIO or the AA, to educate and inform everyone in the PA, including the inward section, as to what is the RTI Act, who is the PIO, who is the AA and what is to be done with a application or a First Appeal recieved under RTI Act 2005.
First of all I extend my thanks to Col. Kurup to pass a very practical suggestion while addressing PIOs or AAs. I should definitely follow that valuable piece of suggestion. However so far as this particular instance is concerned, the addresses of the AAs are also different as found in the two sources I’ve earlier mentioned. In one source the address is Department of Information Technology, Government of West Bengal, 4, Camac Street (7th Floor), Kolkata – 700 016 while in another it is Webel Bhawan, Block EP GP Sector V, Salt Lake , Kolkata 700 091. To find an easy solution I could have zeroed down to the right name and address by telephone to the SCIC (WB). However I’ve resorted to the process of targeting the same application to the trio to find out how they come to my assistance for fetching the information.
The First Appeal sent to (Special Secretary & Appellate Authority), Department of Information Technology, Government of West Bengal, Kolkata – 700 016 returned with a note "Party Shifted" on the envelope by the Courier Service Provider. That leaves my appeal to two appellate authorities as of now.
Last edited by Shrawan Pathak; 13-10-07 at 11:00 PM.
Reason: removed the name and street address.
I have removed the name of the Public authority you had mentioned in your post. We would insist that you refrain from using direct address at RTI India. Our only purpose is to help and disseminate information through rightful interpretation of only 'Act'.
Dear forum friends,
Section 5(2) of RTI 2005 is good solution in any confusions. We may submit any correspondence addressing 1st appeallate authority and ACPIO or ASPIO will send the appeal to only AA. I have already faced similar problem as the CIC mentioned in his decision that CPIO will do this. Actually the CPIO never represented in CIC but the CIC used the CPIO. I was in confusion to whom I may submit my representation. I decided to submit the letter to my immediate superior addressing to CPIO New Delhi and same have despatched to PIO through ACPIO. The PIO did not send to CPIO but he is deteriorating in the name of saving the postal expenditure. I have started threads for this. You may go thorugh.
I have received a letter dated 12-10-2007 from one of the two Appellate Authorities, who is also the MD of the concern, which states that “Your previous letter dated 17-08-2007 on the said subject had been forwarded to us by the Department of Information Technology, Govt. of West Bengal and we had sent our reply to the IT Department of 3rd October 2007. We hope IT Department will be contacting you in this regard.”
I don’t understand why this official had burdened himself with the responsibility of replying my queries to the IT Department when he is not the SPIO. Furthermore why now is he circumventing his responsibility of being Appellate Authority? Let me know to whom and what should I apply for to extract the deserved information.