Infomration commission order without direction/relief to the applicant
yogesh
(Querist) 20 October 2014
This query is : Resolved
Sir, I am lawyer I filed the RTI Application seeking infomration on points related to 498-A case which relates to Police investigation. The Information was trnasffered to JMIC which warned te SPIO, police to be careful in sending RTI to the courts.Then I move to FAA( Fisrt Appellate Authority).The FAA too gave vague reply then I move to the state Information Commission and commission issued notices to the parties and just before 2 days of hearing the SPIO gave reply dated 10.09.2014which too are common and vague.The Commission diposed off my second appeal without considering the contesnt of vague AND COMMON reply given by the SPIO dated 10.09.2014...Now In such case since information has not been supplied to me and the commission too has given the order whether I should appraoch to the state information commission that letter dated 10.09.2014 didnot disclose the information or I should file the writ petition against the order of the State Infomration Commission??
Kindly see the contents of the order which I have pasted below
ontents of second appeal are taken for consideration. The appellant
stated that the respondent-SPIO has transferred his RTI application
under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 to the JMIC, who vide
letter dated 4.6.2014 returned with the direction that information
sought by the appellant relates to the police authorities. The SPIO has
also been warned to the careful in sending such RTI applications which
has no relation with the trial court. The appellant agitated that there are
no provisions under the RTI Act, 2005 to reject an RTI application
merely on the ground that the matter is sub-judice. He prayed for the
Commission's directions to the respondent-SPIO to provide information
as sought vide RTI applicaqon dated 4.4.2014. He further prayed for
issue appropriate order and directions against the respondents for
denying the information.
3. SPIO-cum-Deputy Superintendent of Police
(HQ), appeared before the Commission. He submitted that he
joined as SPIO on 26.8.2014. The RTI application was received and
processed by his predecessor. As per record of the case file, the
appellant's RTI application was received in the SPIO's office on
12.4.2014. The appellant has sought nine point information relating to
FIR no. 551 dated 6.7.2012 under Section 498 A, 406, 323, 506.
Assistance was sought from the custodian of the record i.e. SHO, Police
Station . The appellant was informed that the information
could not be provided as after arresting the accused on 18.9.2012,
challan has been put in the court concerned on 1.10.2012. However,
point-wise reply was given to the appellant vide letter dated 10.9.2014.
The appellant's RTI application was transferred under Section 6(3)
to the court concerned for providing the information. The respondentSPIO regretted that the RTI application was transferred under Section
6(3) to the JMIC.
4. The FAA disposed of the appeal vide order dated 3.6.2013 by
observing that the requisite reply has been given to the appellant by the
respondent-SPIO.
5. The Commission heard the averments of the respondent-SPIO and
perused the record of the case file. The Commission noted that the
present SPIO has joined recently. Since the challan has been put in the
court concerned on 1.10.2012 and the appellant was informed on
15.5.2014 in response to RTI application dated 4.4.2014 that the case
file has been submitted to the court and is not available with the public
authority, hence, the information could not be furnished to the
appellant. The Commission observed that the then respondent-SPIO has
erred in transferring the RTI application under Section 6(3) of the RTI
Act, 2005 to the JMIC. The manner in which the RTI application has
been processed shows that there is complete lack of appreciation of the
provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. However, no malafide
intention to hide or conceal the information from the appellant has been
established on the part of the respondent-SPIO.
6. In view of the above facts, the appeal is decided with the following
direction:
i. The respondent public authority shall ensure to make
arrangements for the training of the designated SPIOs and FAAs
for the effective implementation of the RTI Act, 2005
Announced. To be communicated.
Dr J C Vashista
(Expert) 20 October 2014
File an appeal before Central Information Commission,JLN University,New Delhi U//S 19 of RTI Act, 2005 for nonprovidiing /inappropriate information provided, wherein State Information Commission has also not passed appropriate orders.
yogesh
(Querist) 20 October 2014
Sir, with due respect sir..Central Information commission has no power to sit over the state information commission..CIC presides over the central PIO and FAA govern by the centre where as state Information commission preside ovr the State PIO & FAA
Isaac Gabriel
(Expert) 21 October 2014
Appeal against the order of SIC lies with the High Court.
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 21 October 2014
Is this your personal query or on behalf of your client?
Advocate. Arunagiri
(Expert) 21 October 2014
File a writ petition in the high court challenging the order of the SIC.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 22 October 2014
