COMPLAINT agasint PIO for misleading information

BEFORE THE HON'BLE INFORMATION COMISSION: CITY

Between:

Complainant
Address:
City/town                                                                           ...…Complainant


PIO
O/o: Respondent 1
City/town                                                                               .....Respondent 1

PIO
O/o: Respondent 2
City/town                                                                               .....Respondent 2



COMPLAINT FILED U/S 18 OF RTI ACT – 2005


I.   INDEX of DOCUMENTS(ENCLOSED)
1). My RTI Application dated   u/s 6               ……Exhibit A
2) Speed/Regd  Post Article                            ……Exhibit B
3). The PIO response u/s 6(3)                         ……Exhibit C
3). The PIO Response from other Public Authority (Respondent 2)
Lr. No. RTI/E.O-1/2010, dated 20/12/10                     ...…Exhibit C


II.   FACTS
The Complainant who needed some information from the first respondent filed an application (Exhibit - A). The PIO-first respondent, forwarded the application u/s 6(3) to PIO-second respondent (Ex - B).  The PIO of second respondent furnished her responses through her reply letter (Ex - C) to the 10 queries raised. Some of the PIO’s responses indicate that PIO is the wrong address/custodian of the information asked as such, apparently sec 6(3) referral is a mis-direction to a wrong destination some other responses are clearly false and misleading. Hence this complaint.


III.   PRAYER - RELIEF SOUGHT
1). To issue directions for disclosure of information asked.
2). To defray the costs and consequential damages entailed.
3). To levy penalties and violation of RTI provisions as provided u/s 20 of RTI ACT.



IV.   GROUNDS FOR PRAYER - RELIEF SOUGHT
1). The PIO-first respondent is the principal custodian of the records pertaining to the information asked[he being the chairperson of the committee.] However, PIO passed the buck to other Public Authourity who declared that he held no information for most of the questions asked, namely questions ??????

2). The PIO-second respondent furnished false and misleading information to
questions ??????, by giving irrelevant, unrelated and unsolicited information.

3). The two Public Authourities indulged in a game of buck passing instead of displaying any due diligence for compliance.

4). The response from both Public Authouriteis displaying gross ignorance about the information as asked.
5). To cover up their ignorance and opacity they restored to buck passing and  pillar-to-post referrals.

6). Both the functionaries failed to apprise the complainant about the onward appellate procedures and processes as provided required u/s 7(8) (ii) and (iii).



SELF VERIFICATION


I, XX XXXXX, S/o A A AAAA, hereby affirm and state that, the facts and circumstances mentioned herein are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.


Place: CITY                                                                     X XX XXXXX
Date:                                                                               COMPLAINANT


Copy  To: Respondent 1 PIO
                Respondent 2 PIO