I applied for certain information from a central government authority. Out of 9 queries for information that I requested, I received answers to 6 queries, I was denied answers to 1 query under clause 8(d) of the Act, and was given incomplete information to 2 queries.
I therefore appealed to the Appellate Authority of the department against the 1 query that was denied under clause 8(d) and against the incomplete information for the 2 queries.
In my appeal, I also asked for additional information/further clarifications on the 6 queries that were answered by the department.
I received the Order from the Appellate Authority of the department today. Regarding the denied query, the concerned officer has been directed to either provide the information or else pass a reasoned order that the information so provided is not in the public interest and hence cannot be provided. Regarding the incomplete information, the officer has been directed to furnish the missing information.
However, and this is my query to the forum: the appellate authority has denied my request to seek clarifications/additional information on the other 6 queries stating: "Under the Act there is no provision, which empowers the applicant to seek additional information in the appeal stage"
Is this posiiton taken by the Appellate Authority correct? Is it better for me to go for a second appeal or is it better to file a fresh RTI application seeking the clarifications/additional information?
Yes, appellant authority can only decide about the appeal and can direct if required; from PIO to supply the information henceforth not supplied.
However, as rightly said, you cannot ask for information from Appellant Authority. The best course is to ask from the PIO for the information.
However, as the 1st Appellant authority is from the same department and a direction to PIO either to apply exemption or give information seems incorrect to me. The Appellant authority should have asked for the clarification from PIO, gone ahead with the merits of the case and normally should have directed to either supply or not, rather than sending it back to PIO to decide!