Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
First Appeal Procedure First Appeal Procedure under RTI Act…under RTI Act…
Pralhad KachareDeputy Commissioner
1st Appeal to AA [ Form ‘J’ ]
AA APIO
AAPersonal
Hearing optional
Applicant / TP PIO
Satisfied Dissatisfied
2nd Appealto SIC
First AppealFirst AppealFirst Appeal is provided within Public Authority
Intention is to ensure check over PIOEnsure delivery of information if available and providable.
FAA is always a higher rank officer of PIO who has routine control over PIO.
It is expected that if PIO goes wrong, FAA can correct the wrong and comply with the spirit of RTI Act..
Experience & ComplaintsExperience & ComplaintsCitizens, NGOs, Activists & SICs complain that FFA is a very poor link .
First Appeals are not taken seriously & not tried in the spirit of RTI.
FAA do not pay proper attention because no fine or punishment is expressly provided for their inaction in RTI Act…….
There is growing demand that FAA be brought under Fine & DE purview.
Time Limit for Filling of First Time Limit for Filling of First AppealAppealThe first appeal may be made
within 30 days from the date of expire of the prescribed period or from the receipt of communication from the PIO.
If the First Appellate Authority is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filling the appeal, the appeal may be admitted after 30 days also. [email protected]
Disposal of First AppealDisposal of First AppealDeciding appeals under the RTI Act
is a quasi-judicial function. It is, therefore, necessary that the
appellate authority should see to it that the justice is not only done but it should also appear to have been done.
In order to do so, the order passed by the appellate authority should be a speaking order giving justification for the decision arrived at.
Time Limit for Disposal of Time Limit for Disposal of First AppealFirst AppealThe appeal should be disposed off within
30 days of receipt of the appeal. In exceptional cases, the Appellate
Authority may take 45 days for its disposal.
However, in cases where disposal of appeal takes more then 30 days, the Appellate Authority should record in writing the reasons for such delay.
If an appellate authority comes to a conclusion that the appellant should be supplied information in addition to what has been supplied to him by the PIO, he may either
(i) pass an order directing the PIO to give such information to the appellant; or
(ii) he himself may give information to the appellant while disposing off the appeal
Time Limit for Disposal of Time Limit for Disposal of First AppealFirst Appeal In the first case the appellate authority should
ensure that the information ordered by him to be supplied is supplied to the appellant immediately.
It would, however, be better if the appellant authority chooses the second course of action and he himself furnishes the information along with the order passed by him in the matter.
If, in any case, the PIO does not implement the order passed by the appellant authority and the appellate authority feels that intervention of higher authority is required to get his order implemented, he should bring the matter or the notice of the officer in the public authority competent to take action against the PIO.
Such competent officer shall take necessary action so as to ensure implementation of the provisions of the RTI Act.
Process of First AppealProcess of First AppealFAA on receiving appeal must register
in ‘Register of RTI First Appeals’Start the case with ‘Rojnama’Read & understand the contents of
Appeal…Give notices communicating date,
time & place of hearing to all concerned i.e. Appellant, PIO, and if there is ‘Third Party’.
Hear the appellant ,PIO & third party on the date & time given in notice.
Be neutral while hearing the appeal.
Process of First AppealProcess of First AppealCheck whether information sought
is available with PIO…..If available check whether PIO is
inclined to provide information…..Whether cost of information
intimated to appellant……Whether appellant (if not BPL) has
paid the cost of information …….Whether information is providedWhether information provided is
accurate, complete and not misleading as may be complained in appeal.
Process of First AppealProcess of First AppealAllow Appellant to file his written say or
written argument as the case may be……Give opportunity to PIO to put his say…..If there is third party….allow him/her to
adduce evidence.If it is found that information was available
& providable but cost of info was not communicated to appellant within prescribed time…..
Treat this as deemed refusal or denial of information.
Then allow the appeal & direct the PIO to provide information free of cost……….. Write a speaking decision ……
Warn the PIO using supervisory powers to avoid repetition of such deemed denial
Process of First AppealProcess of First AppealIf it is found that information is available but there are some limitations in providing such information…….
Counsel the Appellant and see whether alternate route of inspection was attempted or can be attempted.
Genuine information seekers do respond to such actions.
Process of First AppealProcess of First AppealCheck whether PIO has rejected the
application with reasoned order………..Check the order and Appeal on
merit…..Check the provisions of RTI Act and if
convinced about refusal,Write a reasoned order confirming the
decision of PIO and rejecting the appeal……
Decision of the FAA must be speaking and convincing to show that FAA has understood the appeal and he /she has applied mind in giving decision.
Latest Case Law of Mumbai Latest Case Law of Mumbai High CourtHigh CourtWrit Petition No. 6961 OF Writ Petition No. 6961 OF 20122012
Vivek Vishnupant Kulkarni r/o Sangali vs. 1. State of Maharashtra through Chief
Secretary 2. SIC Pune 3. Deputy Secretary & First Appellate
Authority, UDD 4. Section Officer & PIO,UDD Decided on 27th February 2015
The Application The Application
One Vivek Vishnupant Kulkarni who is associated wioth with a public trust by the name Swatantraya Veer Sawarkar Pratishthan, Vishrambaug,SangliSangali sought information
in respect of the Government Resolution dated 21st August, 1996 on 5th September, 2008 from Section Officer, UDD relating to release of lands in & around Sangali under ULC Act.
Information SoughtInformation SoughtHe sought information about
the Government notings and other documents on the basis of which the said Government Resolution was issued.
The details of the lands released on the basis of the said Government Resolution were also sought
PIO rtesponse PIO rtesponse
By a communication dated 22nd September, 2008 the PIO informed the applicant that the him is pertaining to file No. ULC/1089/2123/ /ULC-2 which is not available on the record of the Urban Development Department and therefore, the said information cannot befurnished to him. :::
PIO Rresponse PIO Rresponse By the said communication dated
22nd September, 2008 it was informed to the Petitioner that the other information which was sought for by the Petitioner vide his point No.4 in his application dated 5th September, 2008 is in connection with the office of the Deputy Collector and competent authority, Sangli and the said application to that extent has been transferred / transmitted to the said authority for further action in the matter.
First AppealFirst AppealFeeling aggrieved by the said non-
action bythe PIO, the applicant preferred an
appeal bearing No.4 of 2008 to Dy. Secretary, UDD on 27th November, 2008.
the Appellate Authority and the Deputy Secretary, UDD by its order dated Nil January 2009 partly allowed the said appeal thereby directing the PIO along with the Section Officer ULCA-2 to take search of the concerned file bearing No. ULC/1089/2123//ULC-2 and to submit the file or information in connection with the file to the applicant immediately
First AppealFirst AppealIt was further directed to the Deputy
Collector and Competent Authority, Sangli Urban Agglomeration to provide the information in respect of the lands returned to the owners as per the Government Resolution dated 21st August, 1996. The said information was directed to be furnished to the Petitioner within a period of fifteen days.
The First Appellate Authority in his order dated Nil January 2009 has observed that as the Government Resolution dated 21st August, 1996 is a policy decision taken by the Government, the taken by the Government, the file pertaining to the said decision must be available.
First AppealFirst AppealIt was observed that there is a scope
to make efforts for tracing the said file.
It was also observed that the information which was sought for was not available with the PIO and therefore, the said information. Was not made available to the applicant.
The First Appellate Authority further proceeded to observe that the PIO did not have any intention to deny the said information sought for by the applicant.
Second AppealSecond AppealFeeling dissatisfied by the order dated
Nil January 2009 passed in Appeal No.4 of 2008 preferred a Second Appeal to Hon. SIC Pune Bench. dated 15th June, 2009.
SIC Pune heard the appeal and orally directed the PIO to trace the information and directed FAA if file is not traced, to fix responsibility & file criminal cases against concerned under Maharashtra Public Records Act 2005 and submit a report on or before 6th May, 2011.
FAA Request Review of FAA Request Review of orders of SICorders of SICThe SIC judgment dated 18th August
2011 and order also discloses that by a letter dated 7th July, 2011 the
First Appellate Authority & Dy. Secretary submitted an elaborate explanation thereby giving various reasons and expressing its inability to comply with the direction issued by the Hon. SIC and submitted to that the oral directions given in Appeal No.266/2011/Sangli may be reviewed and appropriate order may be passed in the matter.
SIC Order 18SIC Order 18thth August 2011 August 2011Hon.SIC in his order dated 18th
August 2011 observed that File containing papers regarding GRs issued are public documents and necessary to be preserved under Maharashtra Public Records Act.
Expressing non-availability or non-traceability amounts to denial of information to applicant.
Hon. SIC directed FAA to form a special team to trace the file, if not traced file a criminal complaint and submit a report by 13th Sept. 2011 & latest by 5th October 2011. [email protected]
Applicant pursued the Applicant pursued the mattermatterThe applicant marked that SIC
orders were not complied with.He sent repeated reminders to
Dy. Secretary UDD concerned asking the status of compliance.
Noticing non-compliance the applicant approached Mumbai High Court by filing writ petition No. 6961 of 2012.
High Court issued notices High Court issued notices to allto allJoint Secretary Urban Development
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai filed a detailed affidavit dated 29th October, 2012 thereby placing on record the various steps allegedly taken for tracing out the file bearing No.ULC/1089/2123//ULC- 2.
On a plain reading of the said affidavit dated 29th October, 2012 it is revealed that, instead of submitting the compliance report of the order passed by the State Information Commissioner, the Respondent No.3 has only given several excuses and the difficulties which he has allegedly faced while attempting to comply with the order passed by the State Election [email protected]
High Court Observed thatHigh Court Observed that: : Public record not being available was serious.
It amounts to denying information to the citizens in respect of important decisions of the State
The order of SIC not complied with is serious.
Non-fixing of responsibility for loss of record and non-filing of criminal complaint against those responsible most serious.
Mumbai High Court Mumbai High Court sayssays: : The case in hand is a classic example,
as to how the Government officers for protecting their fellow officers tend to frustrate the basic intention of the legislature behind the enactment of the Right to Information Act, 2005
DecisionDecisionHon high Court directed Dy. Secretary & First AA to file criminal complaint against those responsible for loss of record.
Directed Offence to be investigated by a police officer not below the rank of Dy. Commissioner of Police.
Awarded cost of Rs. 15000 to be paid by the state to petitioner i.e. applicant.
