RTI Application not answered by coop.bank
asgari
(Querist) 28 December 2010
This query is : Resolved
I have applied to know the poisition of
my 18 years old F.D. with coop.bank
in baroda under RTI ACT. but till date
they have not provided me the information
not they have replied.
What should I do now ?
Where to go now ?
M.H.VOHRA
VADODARA
94263 84486
Arvind Singh Chauhan
(Expert) 28 December 2010
You can file appeal to first appellate authority within 30 days, or directly file complaint to State Information commissioner.
malipeddi jaggarao
(Expert) 30 December 2010
But Mr.Arvind (Expert) advised to file the appeal within 30 days. That is from which date. Actually it is from the date of receipt of reply to the original application. In this case, no reply is received. Every organisation designates appellate authority within. The RTI applicant has to prefer first appeal with this Appellate authority and then can go for second appeal to CIC of State Authority. Hence, please follow the advice given by Shri Gopal Soni. For your benefit I quote below similar decided case by second appellate authority.
Delay in reply by PIO and change of stand, etc. :
Three interesting points are decided in CIC’s decision dated 30-4-2008 in the matter of Shri Deepak H. Chhabria of Mumbai v. Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs.
In Shri Chhabria’s RTI application, he wanted to know whether a demand draft of Rs.25,000 sent by the Employment Promotion Council of Indian Personnel, Mumbai, was encashed by the Ministry for renewal of RC for 25 years, etc.
1.1 RTI application filed on 8 March, 2007 was first replied by the PIO on 21 June, 2007, i.e., a delay of more than two months, beyond the period (one month) stipulated for reply in the RTI Act.
1.2 The Commission, therefore, decided to issue a show-cause notice as to why penalty should not be levied for this delay under Section 20(1) of the Act.
2.1 In the first reply given, the respondents informed the appellant that they were collecting the information which would be supplied to him. However, later through a letter of 14 August 2007, they informed the appellant that they regarded the information asked for as third-party information.
2.2 The Commission was sorry to see this change of stand of the respondents. The Commission examined the issue and came to the conclusion that even though the information asked is about others than the appellant who filed the application, in view of the public interest involved in the case, this cannot be regarded as third-party information. The matter, obviously, involves and affects a lot of persons. It, therefore, directed the respondents to disclose all the documents/files on the subject to the appellant by 21 May 2008.
3.1 The Commission also noticed that the replies received by the appellant from the respondents were signed neither by the PIO, nor by the Appellate Authority but other officials in the Department.
3.2 The Commission warned the respondents to henceforth ensure that provisions of the Act are adhered to in letter and spirit and that response to the RTI applications and appeals are signed by the PIO and the Appellate Authority, respectively. They were also directed to mention the name of the Appellate Authority while making the first response to the RTI application.
(No. CIC/OK/A/2007/01297 decided on 30-4- 2008)
Advocate. Arunagiri
(Expert) 02 January 2011
RTI appln to PIO - 1st appeal to Appealate authority - 2nd appeal to the SIC. You can not skip anything.
