Dear Rakesh, Your case clearly falls u/s 19. You file RTI and PIO promises to give information although belated. After 45 days of RTI you file FA, Appellate orders PIO to give information. Even after 6 months you dont get information so you file COMPLAINT which is converted to 2nd Appeal by CIC. You are still awaiting date at CIC. At *present time* your case falls under section 19.
Had you filed a Complaint instead of First Appeal, your case would have been different. What is clearly emerging from these discussion (your case / Col Kurup's matter) is that Complaint should be made immediately after expiry of about 35-40 days of filing the RTIO request. By scheme of RTI Act Section 18 Complaints are the PREFERRED route vis-a-vis Section 19 Appeals. However, the CIC/SIC will not like this (extra load on them), so they will do their best to divert citizens to file First Appeals INSTEAD. Sarbajit --- In [email protected], RAKESH GUPTA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > dear sir, > kindly note , my case does not fall any sub section section 19 of appeal. > because no decision is made for denial, and they had promise to provide the information. > although no information is provided till date.However it fala in section 18(1) of the RTI ACt. > with regards > rakesh gupta > > sroy1947 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi Rakesh, > > Your case is very different from Col Kurup's. > > Neither PIO nor AA has denied you information or cited any exemption. > In fact the intention is clearly to give you the information. since > you were late in filing 2nd Appeal you filed complaint probably > relying upon the clauses 18(1)(c) and/or 18(1)(e). CIC has converted > this to appeal and registered it. > > Since delay in filing seems condoned, and for Central matters there is > not much difference between Complaint and Appeal, all that remains now > is for your appeal to be disposed of in the normal course - CIC is > running late by 6/9 months now. The only alternative you have is to go > to High Court in Writ jurisdiction asking for supervision of CIC u/a > 227. If there are some compelling grounds for urgency, you can inform > these to C'IC or CIC Registry asking for early date BEFORE going to > High Court. > > Sarbajit > > --- In [email protected], RAKESH GUPTA <snehcs2@> wrote: > > > > DEAR SIRS, > > KINDLY SUGGEST WHAT ALTNATIVE I HAVE, IN PRESENT SITUATION. > > i filed RTI request. No information is given. However, LD CPIO had > inform me that he will shortly supply the infomation . after 45 days > of RTI , i had filed first appeal. A A directed to supply the > information. > > However, after 6 months of AA order no infomation is supplied. > > After this, i had filed complaint with CIC. CIC had registered as > appeal, and no date of hearing is fixed till date although three > months are over. > > Is CIC is right to register complaint as appeal , when F AA order > is direction to CPIO to supply the infomation. > > Is it not delay tactis by CIC. > > with regards > > rakesh gupta > > > > sroy1947 <sroy1947@> wrote: > > Dear Col Kurup, > > > > You are too emotionally attached to this matter to debate logically. I > > am only debating this academically (for further education) since I > > have high regard for you. > > > > 1) It is very well settled that when there are multiple remedies for > > granting a particular relief, the litigant may only agitate one of > > them. This is allied to the legal concept of "res adjudicata" or "a > > thing once decided cannot be reagitated again (and again)". So you > > must choose to use 18(3) or 19(1) but not both. This principle is so > > well settled that it is not inserted into the laws of India. > > > > 2) 18(3) is the specific provision in the RTI Act for your lis - > > namely deemed refusal of the PIO. You failed to use it at the right > time. > > > > 3) Having chosen the route of 19(3) which is ALSO permissible, you > > should have followed it up with a 2nd Appeal rather than going for > > 18(3) complaint after the avenue was closed. > > > > 4) S'CIC very kindly allowed you to continue on to 2nd Appeal, but > > you chose not to pursue it. > > > > 5) A bad carpenter blames his tools. Either be a bad carpenter with > > better tools OR become a good carpenter who will be able to work with > > the very poor tools of RTI Act. > > > > Sarbajit > > > > --- In [email protected], "colnrkurup" <colnrkurup@> wrote: > > > > > > I repeat that this may kindly be considered only as an accademic > > > discussion clarifying a very vital factor to prevent hijacking of the > > > RTI Act by some of the corrupt and influencial officials with the > > > connivance of the Commissions. > > > 1. There is absolutely no provision anywhere in the Act that > > > stipulate that a First Appeal under 19(1) bar a complaint u/s 18(1)(c) > > > 2. In fact one is not expected to approach SIC/CIC as and when with > > > the deemed refusal of the PIO lest the Commission is over-burdened. > > > It is normal protocal to approach the Commission only when an > > > aggrieved exhaust all other opportunitiesstipulated in the Act. > > > Naturally when the PIO refuces, one should approach his AA by the > > > only means of approach viz., first appeal. In majority of the cases > > > the AA will direct the PIO to furnish the reply - it maynot be the > > > information sought; but one will get a reply as the PIO will not have > > > any reason for not replying.I donot find anything wrong in making one > > > more first appeal based on the reply if required. In case this > > > second "first appeal" is rejected, it is good enough reason. > > > 3. Section 19(1) is very specific. Any person not receiving a > > > decision ....may file an appeal. IT DOES NOT SAY SAY that on deemed > > > refusal one should not file first appeal but should resort to > > > complaint only. > > > 4. Sec 19(3) is too specific. A SECOND APPEAL SHALL LIE ONLY AGAINST > > > THE DECISION UNDER 19(1). This means that there could be no Second > > > Appeal unless there is a DECISION of first appeal. If there is NO > > > DECISION or NO REPLY, there cannot be a Second appeal. The Act does > > > not allow it.Of course anything can happen in "KHANSI RAM KA > > > PALTAN ".Thjat is a diferant matter altogether > > > 5. Kindly forget the number of days or delay aspects. That is not > > > the issue > > > 6. Can anyone quote the relevant Section of the Act which says that A > > > SECOND APEAL SDHALL LIE without a First Appeal ? > > > 7. Can any one quote the Section which bar a complaint when first > > > ppeal is made or rather where does it state that a first appeal > > > disqualify the appellant from making a complaint. > > > 8. Kindly leave aside the somersoult of First appeal, Second appeal > > > and complaint. Let us examine the ground realities. A cityzen make an > > > application seeking an information falling under the defenition of > > > information given in Section 2(f). The information is held by the PA > > > and not falling under any of the exedmptions or disportionately > > > divert the resosurces nor spoil the record. Can anyone, PIO or AA or > > > the SIC, deny it and dismiss the case just because the information if > > > given will expose serious corruption which the PIO, AA and SIC does > > > not want to disclose. By converting the Complaint suo motu into a > > > Second appeal the sIC has barred the appellant's chance to prefer the > > > second appeal with relevant provisions which does not suit the PIO,AA > > > and SIC. With such a disposal how can one approach judiciary ? These > > > are all deliberate hy-jacking theRTI Act. I feel that forums likeRTI- > > > india should stand for that. Can anyone justify the above > > > actofSIC,Kerala ? It is an open challenge > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > > Why delete messages? Unlimited storage is just a click away. > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > Chat on a cool, new interface. No download required. Click here. > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
