BEFORE THE HON'BLE INFORMATION COMISSION: CITY
Appellant
Address: ...…Appellant
-AND-
Public Information Officer - RTI
Addrress .....PIO-Respondent 1
First Appellate Authourity
Adrress ......FAA-Respondent 2
SECOND APPEAL U/s 19(3) OF RTI ACT – 2005
I. INDEX of DOCUMENTS (ENCLOSED)
1). My RTI Application dated file U/s 6 of RTI ...Exhibit A
2). My First Appeal dated file U/s 19(1) of RTI ...Exhibit B
II. FACTS OF THE CASE
An application was filed seeking some information (Ex – A). Faced with the refusal to divulge the said information and it is a deemed refusal on the part of the PIO. A First Appeal was filed (Ex – B).. The First Appeal Authourity, too, refused the access to information. Hence this Appeal.
III. PRAYER - RELIEF SOUGHT
1). To issue directions for disclosure of information asked, free of cost.
2). To defray costs and consequential damages entailed, as provided U/s 19(8)b of RTI
3). To levy penalties and punishment for violation of RTI as provided U/s 20 of RTI
4). In addition to above, please pass orders as held in para 10 of 3rd Adjunct Appeal No.
CIC/WB/A/2008/00956 dated Dated 2nd June ‘ 2009, wherein CIC stated that “directions given by this commission U/s 19(8) R/W Section 19(7) are binding under law. By their conduct, they have therefore committed offences punishable U/s 166, 187 & 188 of 1PC”.
IV. GROUNDS FOR PRAYER - RELIEF SOUGHT
1). The PIO, did not respond to my application within or beyond the stipulated time limit, as
provided U/s 7(1) of RTI Act.
2). In view of the above, as well as his failure to give any decision/disposal on my application
and it is a deemed refusal on his part as provided U/s 7(2) of RTI Act.
3). The PIO, did not refund the application fee in terms of section U/s 7(6) of RTI Act.
4). Despite, giving more time than necessary, no cognizance was taken by the PIO.
5). The FAA, failed to rectify the breach and anomaly of the PIO.
6). Further, FAA did not respond to my appeal being an Appellate Authourity
7). The denial-order by the PIO and FAA is unreasonable, wilfull and mala fide and hence
attracts the penal provisions under RTI Law.
SELF VERIFICATION
I, S/o hereby affirm and state that, the facts and circumstances mentioned herein are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Place: Sd/-
Date: APPELLANT
Copy To:
1) Respondent 1 - PIO
2) Respondent 2 - FAA
Appellant
Address: ...…Appellant
-AND-
Public Information Officer - RTI
Addrress .....PIO-Respondent 1
First Appellate Authourity
Adrress ......FAA-Respondent 2
SECOND APPEAL U/s 19(3) OF RTI ACT – 2005
I. INDEX of DOCUMENTS (ENCLOSED)
1). My RTI Application dated file U/s 6 of RTI ...Exhibit A
2). My First Appeal dated file U/s 19(1) of RTI ...Exhibit B
II. FACTS OF THE CASE
An application was filed seeking some information (Ex – A). Faced with the refusal to divulge the said information and it is a deemed refusal on the part of the PIO. A First Appeal was filed (Ex – B).. The First Appeal Authourity, too, refused the access to information. Hence this Appeal.
III. PRAYER - RELIEF SOUGHT
1). To issue directions for disclosure of information asked, free of cost.
2). To defray costs and consequential damages entailed, as provided U/s 19(8)b of RTI
3). To levy penalties and punishment for violation of RTI as provided U/s 20 of RTI
4). In addition to above, please pass orders as held in para 10 of 3rd Adjunct Appeal No.
CIC/WB/A/2008/00956 dated Dated 2nd June ‘ 2009, wherein CIC stated that “directions given by this commission U/s 19(8) R/W Section 19(7) are binding under law. By their conduct, they have therefore committed offences punishable U/s 166, 187 & 188 of 1PC”.
IV. GROUNDS FOR PRAYER - RELIEF SOUGHT
1). The PIO, did not respond to my application within or beyond the stipulated time limit, as
provided U/s 7(1) of RTI Act.
2). In view of the above, as well as his failure to give any decision/disposal on my application
and it is a deemed refusal on his part as provided U/s 7(2) of RTI Act.
3). The PIO, did not refund the application fee in terms of section U/s 7(6) of RTI Act.
4). Despite, giving more time than necessary, no cognizance was taken by the PIO.
5). The FAA, failed to rectify the breach and anomaly of the PIO.
6). Further, FAA did not respond to my appeal being an Appellate Authourity
7). The denial-order by the PIO and FAA is unreasonable, wilfull and mala fide and hence
attracts the penal provisions under RTI Law.
SELF VERIFICATION
I, S/o hereby affirm and state that, the facts and circumstances mentioned herein are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Place: Sd/-
Date: APPELLANT
Copy To:
1) Respondent 1 - PIO
2) Respondent 2 - FAA
