faa-first-appeal-timelines
no way to compare when less than two revisions
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| — | faa-first-appeal-timelines [2026/04/23 01:19] (current) – created - external edit 127.0.0.1 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | {{htmlmetatags> | ||
| + | |||
| + | ====== First Appeal Timelines — FAA Timekeeping Under Section 19 ====== | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{ : | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{page> | ||
| + | |||
| + | <WRAP info> | ||
| + | **Two clocks, one FAA.** The appellant runs a **30-day filing window** under Section 19(1). The FAA runs a **30-day disposal window** under Section 19(6), extendable to **45 days with reasons recorded in writing**. Missing either has consequences. | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Legal framework ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | **Section 19(1).** A person aggrieved by the PIO's decision may file First Appeal within **30 days** of receipt of the PIO's decision, or the expiry of the 30-day reply window under Section 7(1) (deemed refusal). | ||
| + | |||
| + | **Section 19(1) proviso.** The FAA may admit a delayed appeal "if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time". | ||
| + | |||
| + | **Section 19(4).** Where appeal involves third-party information, | ||
| + | |||
| + | **Section 19(6).** The appeal shall be disposed of within **30 days** of receipt, or **45 days from the date of filing** for reasons to be recorded in writing. | ||
| + | |||
| + | **Section 19(3).** Second Appeal to the Commission within **90 days** of the FAA's decision or the date by which the decision should have been made. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Timeline at a glance ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | |= Event |= Statutory time |= Source | | ||
| + | | PIO receives RTI | Day 0 | Section 6 | | ||
| + | | PIO must reply | Day 30 (48 hrs for life/ | ||
| + | | Appellant can file First Appeal | Within 30 days of PIO's reply or Day 31 (if deemed refusal) | §19(1) | | ||
| + | | FAA must dispose | Day 30 from receipt of appeal | §19(6) | | ||
| + | | With written reasons, FAA may extend to | Day 45 from filing | §19(6) proviso | | ||
| + | | Appellant can file Second Appeal | Within 90 days of FAA order or FAA deadline expiry | §19(3) | | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Key principles ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | * **Clocks are independent.** The PIO's delay does not extend the FAA's timeline. | ||
| + | * **Fee restarts the PIO clock.** Section 7(3) — if PIO asks for further fee, the 30-day clock starts afresh on payment. Relevant to appeal timing. | ||
| + | * **Condonation is discretionary.** The FAA may admit time-barred appeals; must record " | ||
| + | * **45-day extension requires reasons.** Not automatic; the FAA must record why extension is needed. | ||
| + | * **Second Appeal right accrues on deadline expiry.** Even without a formal FAA order. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Drafting — condone-delay order ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | < | ||
| + | Appeal No. FA/2026/XXX | ||
| + | |||
| + | This First Appeal has been filed __ days beyond the 30-day period prescribed under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act, 2005. The Appellant has stated that the delay was occasioned by [state reason — medical emergency / postal delay / misdirected reply, etc.]. This Office is satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown. | ||
| + | |||
| + | In exercise of the proviso to Section 19(1), the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for consideration on merits. | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Drafting — 45-day extension order ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | < | ||
| + | This Office finds that the present appeal requires further examination of the PIO's file and a limited clarification from the third party notified under Section 11. In the interest of a reasoned disposal, the 30-day disposal window under Section 19(6) is extended by a further 15 days, so that disposal may be effected by DD-MM-YYYY. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The reasons for extension are recorded under Section 19(6) proviso: [state specific reason — third-party response awaited / complex multi-branch record / hearing scheduled, etc.]. | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Common mistakes ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | * **Silent extensions.** Taking 45 days without recording reasons — non-compliance with the proviso. | ||
| + | * **Treating the appellant' | ||
| + | * **Missing the 30-day deadline without explanation.** The Second Appeal right crystallises regardless. | ||
| + | * **Charging fee for First Appeal.** No fee is prescribed under the Act. | ||
| + | * **Counting holidays incorrectly.** Days are calendar days unless stated otherwise. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Pro tips ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | * **Maintain an appeal calendar.** Day 25 alert for pending appeals — gives you 5 days to act or record extension. | ||
| + | * **Record condonation up-front.** At the acknowledgment stage, not in the final order — simpler. | ||
| + | * **Batch similar appeals.** Disposal efficiency + consistency. | ||
| + | * **Hear oral representations** only where necessary — written disposal is faster and usually sufficient. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Case law ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | * **//CIC Full Bench//** (various) — §19(6) proviso requires recorded reasons; silent extensions invite Commission scrutiny. | ||
| + | * **//Bhagat Singh v. CIC//** (Delhi HC 2008) — timeliness is substantive; | ||
| + | * **//Namit Sharma v. UoI//** (2013) — appellate procedure is quasi-judicial; | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== FAQs ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | **Q1. Can the appellant file First Appeal before the PIO's 30-day window expires? | ||
| + | |||
| + | **Q2. Does receiving the PIO's reply after filing the appeal affect the timeline? | ||
| + | |||
| + | **Q3. Can both parties agree to waive the 30-day disposal? | ||
| + | |||
| + | **Q4. What if the FAA is absent?**\\ The public authority must designate another senior officer to act as FAA. The deadline is institutional, | ||
| + | |||
| + | **Q5. Does deemed refusal count as the PIO's " | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Conclusion ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Two clocks, three timelines, one disciplined calendar. A FAA who keeps the appellate clocks clean issues timely speaking orders, preserves the Second Appeal escalation path, and protects the institution from Section 20 recommendations. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Related reading ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | * [[: | ||
| + | * [[: | ||
| + | * [[: | ||
| + | * [[: | ||
| + | * [[: | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Sources ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | * RTI Act, 2005, Sections 7, 19 | ||
| + | * //Bhagat Singh v. CIC// (Delhi HC 2008) | ||
| + | * //Namit Sharma v. UoI// (2013) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ---- | ||
| + | |||
| + | //Last reviewed: 21 April 2026.// | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{tag> | ||
Was this helpful?
— views
Thanks for the signal.
faa-first-appeal-timelines.txt · Last modified: by 127.0.0.1
