9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 1092 - Commission - Indian LawsRight to information - Held that - sub-section (3) can be invoked when RTI application is to be transferred from one public authority to another public authority . However, this Commission has interpreted this sub-section to mean that RTI applications can be transferred by one PIO to another PIO within the same public authority. This interpretation has been made for practical reasons - it is permissible for a CPIO to transfer RTI application of part thereof to another CPIO within the same public authority - CPIO can transfer the RTI application in entirety or in part. We expect the queries to be self speaking. If so, the subject matter thereof becomes irrelevant - As per Section 5(2), APIO is empowered only to receive RTI applications and then transmit them to the CPIO concerned. On the other hand, CPIO is empowered not only to receive RTI applications directly but also to respond to them. Hence, the functions of the CPIO and APIO are distinct and not co-equal. If FAA in PHQ is the FAA of competent jurisdiction, then he is required to decide the first appeal on merits. But if FAA/PHQ is not the jurisdictional FAA, then he or anybody on his behalf can transfer the first appeal to the jurisdictional FAA - An FAA can transfer the first appeal to another FAA if he does not have jurisdiction over it and the transferee FAA has territorial jurisdiction in the matter - Only one First Appeal can be filed from the order of the CPIO. The law does not contemplate filing of two First Appeals before two different FAAs. Hence, the passing of two different orders by two different FAAs in the same matter is not understandable - Decided in favour of appellant.
Issues involved:
1. Transfer of RTI applications within the same public authority 2. Validity of transfer by APIO instead of PIO 3. Transfer of RTI application by PIO to another PIO 4. Delegation of powers/functions from PIO to APIO 5. Validity of transfer of first appeal by APIO to another FAA 6. Right of FAA to transfer appeal to another FAA 7. Possibility of two different orders by different FAAs in one appeal Issue No. 1: The judgment interprets Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, allowing transfer of RTI applications within the same public authority by one PIO to another for practical reasons, ensuring timely information provision despite overlapping jurisdictions. Issue No. 2: It is clarified that only the CPIO has the authority to transfer RTI applications to another CPIO, not the ACPIO, as the CPIO is central to the RTI regime under Section 7(1) of the Act. Issue No. 3: The judgment states that a CPIO can transfer the RTI application in entirety or in part, with the expectation that the queries are self-explanatory, making the 'subject matter' irrelevant. Issue No. 4: It is explained that the functions of the APIO and CPIO are distinct as per Section 5(2), with the APIO only empowered to receive and transmit RTI applications, while the CPIO can receive and respond to them. Issue No. 5: If the FAA in PHQ has jurisdiction, they must decide on the first appeal; otherwise, the appeal can be transferred to the jurisdictional FAA by the FAA or on their behalf. Issue No. 6: An FAA can transfer an appeal to another FAA with territorial jurisdiction if they lack jurisdiction over the matter, ensuring the appeal is handled by the appropriate authority. Issue No. 7: The judgment finds it incomprehensible for two different FAAs to pass separate orders on the same matter, clarifying that only one First Appeal can be filed from the CPIO's order, preventing multiple conflicting decisions. The judgment provides detailed insights into the legal issues surrounding the transfer of RTI applications and appeals within public authorities, ensuring clarity on the roles and responsibilities of different officers under the RTI Act.
|
