One Additional Tahsildar was the PIO and Tahsildar FAA. In one of the cases I had made the first appeal to the Tahsildar. By the time the Tahsildar went on long leave and the Additional Tahsildar became charge-holder of the Tahsildar. Naturally my first appeal was dealt by the same PIO (Additional Tahsildar) in his newly found stature as the Tahsildar and AA. He dispossed off my first appeal with a reply " There is nothing more to add to the reply furnished by the PIO" (Naturally he cannot change his own views expressed in his capacity as PIO)
I could not find anything wrong technically but it is a mockery.
I had also a similar experience. PIO didnt replied to me, when I made my first appeal, addressing to the FAA of the same office, PIO replied me instantly,in lieu of forwarding my application to the FAA. The information supplied by the PIO,though it was not satisfactory, I had to compromise with it.
You should again write to FAA that "In continuation to my first appeal It is again brought to your kind notice that after the submission of my first appeal before your goodself the PIO sent an unsatisfactory information/reply to me.(Provide the details of pending/balance information).You are therefore again requested to provide and/or direct the concerned PIO to provide me the pending/balance information as mandatory under RTI Act-2005 and also the detailed reasons for not providing the same in the stipulated time as per the provisions of the RTI Act-2005."
As already referred to my above post, this may also be added that the same SAPIO , who sent me a "FALSE INFORMATION" had corrected( as SPIO) his wrong information previously furnished and regretted thereon.But this time he furnished on behalf of the FAA. My point is that whether this time also the SPIO-biased SIC would not impose any penalty for furnishing 'false information' repeatedly. I am totally frustrated for this type of biased attitude of the SIC, WB. Recently SIC imposed penalty of Rs 20,000/ to a Village Panchayet Secretary for the delay in furnishing information etc. But one of our members submitted about a dozen of instances , where one SPIO of the WRITERS' BUILDINGS did not furnish any information after a period of 2 months to 7 months of submitting those applications. Then the SIC simply advised the SPIO ---" The commission hopes that you will be more attentive in this regard in future correspondences in respect of RTI matter"
In spite of that one complaint was lodged against that (favoured) SPIO to the SIC. SIC asked to show cause for different irregularities. But afterwards applant did receive one communication from the SIC that he had accepted SPIO/s views and supported him vehemently. SIC was requested to give oppourtunity to the applellant to be present, during hearing. But he overlooked everything and acted as an efficient advocate of the SPIO. He once mentioned regarding the delay in furnishing the information , but no proper action was taken by him; rather he praised the SPIO for furnishing one 'irrelevant' and unwanted 'enquiry report' supplied by the SPIO without providing any specific information of any query.
If any interested person like to know further regarding this I am ready to inform 'how mucn the SIC is soft' towards this SPIO.I don't know what should be the proper action, when appelant was not allowed to attend the hearing and his appeal was rejected, without any hearing.
Last edited by abhijeet; 17-08-08 at 10:55 AM.