First Appeal is the statutory remedy available to the RTI Applicant, when there is no response from the Public Information Officer within stipulated time limit or the decision of PIO is not satisfactory or the PIO offered / supplied incorrect / misleading information or demanded exorbitant further fee etc. The First Appeal is required to be filed under Section-19(1) of RTI Act.
|Sl||Situations for filing First Appeal||Time limit for filing First Appeal|
|1.||PIO did not respond within 30 days from receipt of RTI Application in his office.||After 30 (+7 days for postal transit time) but within 60 days from the date of receipt of RTI Application at PIO’s Office.|
|2.||RTI Application submitted through APIO but PIO did not respond within 30 days from receipt of RTI Application in PIO’s office.||After 35 (+7 days for postal transit time) but within 60 days from the date of receipt of RTI Application at PIO’s Office.|
|3.||RTI Application transferred by the original public authority to another public authority (PIO) but transferee PIO did not respond within 30 days from receipt of Application.||After 30 (+7 days for postal transit time) but within 60 days from the date of receipt of RTI Application at transferee PIO’s Office.|
|4.||PIO issued notice to third party under section-11(1), but not decided the application within 40 days from receipt of application at his office.||After 40 (+7 days for postal transit time) but within 70 days from the date of receipt of RTI Application at PIO’s Office.|
|5.||PIO's decision under Section-11(3)||Within 30 days from the date of receipt of PIO’s decision.|
|6.||PIO responded but Applicant is not satisfied with decision of PIO or fee demanded is exorbitant or incorrect, incomplete information is supplied etc.||Within 30 days from the date of receipt of decision of PIO by Applicant.|
I have preferred Application dt: ………. under section-6(1) read with Sec-3 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, before The SPIO & …………. … and demanded the following information.
Copy of RTI Application is attached as Annexure-A to this appeal.
In case of No response: The said Application was received and acknowledged by the office of PIO on …………… As per Section-7(1) of the RTI Act, the PIO is required to decide RTI application within 30 days from the date of its receipt. However, the PIO did not decide the application within the stipulated time.
In case of Exorbitant Fee: The SPIO decided the said RTI Application in terms of Section-7(1) of Act and communicated further Fee for providing information vide communication dt: ………………….. . SPIO demanded Application fee of Rs. 7980 for 798 cases and Rs. 4788 towards document charges for 798 pages. The Fee demanded by SPIO is unreasonable and in total contravention of the proviso under Section-7(5), which stipulates that the fee prescribed under Sub-Section(1) of Section-6 and sub-section(1) and (5) of Section-7 shall be reasonable. The Fee thus prescribed is Rs.10 per RTI Application and Rs.2 per page of A4 information.
In case of denial: The applicant demanded 3 counts of the information. CPIO denied information with regard to item no.1 i.e. certified copy of Caste certificate submitted by Mr.Xyz at the time of appointment, under the plea that the information is personal in nature and shall invade the privacy of the employee concerned. This contention is totally wrong. PIO failed to cogently arrive at a conclusion as how the document submitted in response to recruitment notice, which culminated in the appointment of the employee, is personal information. The decision of PIO is malafide and not supported by reasoning.
In case of No response: The total time available for PIO to supply information is 30 days in terms of Section-7(1) read with s.7(3)(a) of the Act. However, the PIO neither communicated his decision on my RTI Application nor supplied information within stipulated time limit of 30 days. No response on the part of PIO is a deemed denial of information in terms of S.7(2) of RTI Act, 2005.
In case of exorbitant Fee: What I have sought from the SPIO is the list of persons enlisted under Section-79 A/B of KLR Act from 2010 to 2013. Such an information is required to be maintained by the Public Authority in compliance of the Land Reforms Act. Therefore the list showing information in 3 counts was required to be offered by SPIO. Instead, he made an unreasonable and illegal demand of Application Fee and further fee with malafide intention to discourage the Applicant from obtaining the information from your Public Authority. SPIO treated each person listed under Sec-79 A/B of KLR Act as a case of separate RTI Application and demanded Application Fee of Rs.10/-. Subject matter of RTI application dt: …………. is only one and asked three counts of information on same subject. Therefore there is no question of treating each case falling under Section-79 A/B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, as separate RTI Application. There is no basis for SPIO to demand Application Fee of Rs. 10/- for each of the 798 cases falling under Sec-79 A/B of KLR Act, which information is available and ready for supplying to the Applicant. SPIO has failed to give reasons for treating each of the 798 cases enlisted in KLR Act as a Separate RTI Application for demanding Application Fee of Rs.7980/-. As there is only one RTI Application seeking 3 counts of information on single subject, SPIO erred in asking applicant to remit Rs.7980 towards Application Fee. The ADDITIONAL application fee demanded by SPIO is illegal, unreasonable and with malafide intention to discourage this applicant from obtaining the information.
In case of denial: The caste certificate was submitted by the employee to the recruitment authority, much before his employment in the public authority, which became part of his service record after appointment. Recruitment is a public activity, which involves participation and interest of large number of aspirants. Caste certificate in question is not a document created during the service period of the employee, and therefore not a matter between the employer and employee, but related to public activity of recruitment and hence provisions of Section-8(1)(j) is not attracted in claiming exemption. Exemption can be claimed under sec-8(1)(j) only with respect to those information which relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. However, in the present case, the disclosure has direct relationship to the recruitment which was and is a public activity and hence PIO erred in claiming exemption under Section-8(1)(j) purportedly considering that disclosure of Caste Certificate shall invade privacy of the employee. In view of this, the exemption claimed by PIO is wrong. The information sought is not qualified for any exemption. Therefore, caste certificate is required to be supplied to the appellant.
Free of charge: PIO failed to supply information within 30 days and hence the applicant is entitled to receive information free of charge in terms of Sec-7(6) of the Act.
Personal hearing: Applicant may be heard personally by this Appellate Authority before deciding the appeal.