Dear Mr.Sarabajit,
This time I find it diffcult to agree with you for a change. May
I request you to have a look at Section 19(3) again ? "A second
appeal against the decision under sub-section (1) shall lie
within....." That means a second appeal can be made only against the
decision on first appeal. When there is no decision at all, how can
one make a second appeal ? Second appeal against what ? Section 18
(c) is very specific ... " who has not been given a response to a
request for information within the time imits ..." Here both the PIO
and AA have not given a respnse. The Act does not say that a
complaint to SIC is not maintainable when a First appeal is made.
Again I would like to draw your attention to Section 19(1) which says
that "Any person who does not receive a decision within the time
specificed in sub-section (1).....may within thirtry days from the
expiry of such period ......"
Hence when I did not receive any response from PIO it is obligatory
on my part to make a first qappeal under 19(1). When no decision
under 19(1) also is not received I have absolutely no choice other
than making a complaint. In case I make a second appeal on receipt
of reply I am forgoing my chance to make second appeal when I receive
the reply based on SIC's direction and the reply malafidely deny the
information. I have absolutely no doubt on it. The Act also isvery
clear in this respect without any ambiguity.I can convince you unless
you can quotethe section of theAct in support of your view.
Now, What is the use of my attending the hearing without knowing
what to defend ? SIC is not a court. I need not PROVE my case.
Whatever I have submitted in my complaint is adequate.This is more so
when I have intimatted that I have nothing more than what is given in
my complaint to add requestting the SIC to decide the case asper my
pleading.Why should theSIC callme for hearing without intimating the
purpose ? What stop him from communicatting the reply furnished by
the PIO. This caseof mine is solid where theSIC has committed all
possible irregularities. Ultimately how can theSIC dismiss my case
suo motu converting my complaint into a second appeal when I had not
made a second appeal. Shall we argue this out on accademic
interest ?
--- In [email protected], "sroy1947" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 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" <colnrkurup@>
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. -
>
