Dear Col Kurup, This sorry state of affairs has been allowed to come about because you are equally (if not more) ignorant of the RTI Act than the S'CIC. I am very sorry to say this, but I must.
Having not received a reply from the PIO and also AA, the S'CIC is correct that 2nd appeal only is maintainable - since Complaint u/s 18 is not maintainable against FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY by scheme of the RTI Act. A 2nd Appeal is against the order (or non-order) of the First Appellate. Hence S'CIC has rightly converted your non-maintainable complaint into maintainable 2nd appeal. Rather than understanding the logic behind his assistance, you have needlessly launched a vilification campaign against him. You have further compounded your error by refusing to participate in 2nd appeal proceedings - since you have prejudged that he is biased. Finally, I fail to see what advantage you would have gained by Complaint rather than 2nd Appeal in the facts of your case. Sarbajit --- In [email protected], "Col NR Kurup" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The SIC, Kerala who has been on a 'disinformation spree' of warning NGOs and > Activists against the so called 'mis-use of the RTI Act' to protect the > corrupt officials from the burden of providing such informtion has now > resort to misinterpretation of the Act to shield the PIOs from providing > information if provided is likely to expose illegal and corrupt procatices > of officials Here is an Order No.AP.375/2007/SIC dated 12-11-2007. -
