Dear Sarbajit Royji and all, I have gone through two identical decisions of two (time-barred) complaints. No.CIC/OK/C/2007/00607,No. CIC/OK/C/2007/00742 In our previous discussions as well as in my dismissal of time barred second appeal by IC(MA), it was concluded in the group that complaint has no limitation of time whereas second appeal has.
So in view of those conclusions,how these two applicants got their complaints (no response after application&first appeal) dismissed due to time-barred.Please suggest. regards Manoj K.Kamra ---------------------------------------------------- Details of decisions are following- No. CIC/OK/C/2007/00742 Dated: 11 April 2008 Name of the Complainant : Smt. Bhanmati Pani Wali , Qtr. No : C/28 , Railway Colony - Sandala Rohtak (Haryana) Name of the Public Authority : Northern Railway Background: Smt. Bhanmati of Rohtak filed an RTI-application on 11 March 2007 with the Public Information Officer, Northern Railway, seeking information regarding family pension. Not getting any reply from the PIO, the Appellant filed an appeal with the first Appellate Authority on 20 April 2007 and then approached the Central Information Commission on 22 October 2007 with a complaint, that is, after six months after filing the first appeal. Decision: 2. Since the Applicant should have filed her complaint within four months of filing her first appeal (in this case, the Applicant had filed her second appeal only on 22.10.2007, that is, six months after filing her first appeal), it is a time barred one and not tenable under the RTI-Act. Accordingly, the Commission treats this case as closed. Sd/- (O.P. Kejariwal) Information Commissioner ------------------------------------------ No.CIC/OK/C/2007/00607 Dated: 11 April 2008 Name of the Complainant : Shri Turkman Singh S/o Sh. Barnam Singh 904 Anand Nagar, Etawah (UP) Name of the Public Authority : Northern Railway Background: Shri Turkman Singh of Etawah filed an RTI-application with the Public Information Officer, Northern Railway, Allahabad, on 27 March 2007 for seeking information regarding the survey conducted for preparing a plan under 73/97. The Appellant also wanted to know the officials who were present at the time of the survey. 2. Not getting any information from the PIO, the Appellant filed an appeal on 9 May 2007 and then filed a complaint with the Central Information Commission on 13 October 2007. Decision: 3. On going through the complaint, the Commission found that he had filed the second complaint more than four months after he was supposed to receive a reply from the First Appellate Authority and hence his complaint becomes time barred. The Commission, therefore, treats this case as closed. Sd/- (O.P. Kejariwal) Information Commissioner
