PIO has decided the RTI application within 30 days under RTI Act 2005 but not responded to any information sought by the applicant
2 Answers
Dear Client, The PIO's response is deficient on multiple independent grounds, and you have a strong case for the first appeal.
The PIO's response refers to your RTI application as a representation which it is not. An RTI application is a specific statutory request for information under Section 6 of the RTI Act. The RTI Act does not provide any mechanism for treating a Section 6 application as a representation and there is no provision permitting an indefinite deferral of response under the guise of submitting it to Government for appropriate action.
More fundamentally, Section 7(1) of the RTI Act is unambiguous. It mandates that the CPIO must within 30 days either accept the request and provide information after the prescribed fee is paid, or reject it under the specific grounds enumerated in Sections 8 and 9. There is no third provision for saying that we have forwarded your matter and will inform you later. This is a deemed refusal under the Act.
In your first appeal under Section 19(1) before the First Appellate Authority, clearly make the following grounds. First, the PIO has neither provided the information sought nor rejected the application under Sections 8 or 9, both options being the only legally permissible responses under Section 7(1). The PIO has considered the RTI request to be a representation, which is not stated in the RTI Act. The PIO has further stated that the amount of time required for this request exceeds the time frames set out in the RTI Act by requesting more than thirty days for the response to the request. It is clear from Section 7(1) that this request for additional time is illegal under the RTI Act.
The applicant obviously has the right to make this appeal under Section 19(1) because the PIO has deemed this application to be a refusal to provide information. The applicant can also cite numerous decisions of the Central Information Commission which have held that vague and/or non-responsive decisions by a PIO constitute a deemed refusal and therefore the Appellate Authority should compel the PIO to supply the information requested within a defined and imposed timeline and should also impose a penalty pursuant to Section 20 of the RTI Act for any failure to comply with the request.
I hope this helps, and if you have any further issues, do not hesitate to contact us.
The appellant respectfully submits that the reply furnished by the Public Information Officer is legally unsustainable and contrary to the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Under Section 7(1) of the Act, the PIO is obligated to either provide the information sought or reject the request by citing specific exemptions under Sections 8 or 9 within the prescribed period of thirty days. In the present case, although a response has been issued within time, it does not constitute a valid decision under the Act, as the PIO has neither supplied the information nor invoked any statutory exemption. Instead, the PIO has erroneously treated the RTI application as a “representation” and stated that the matter has been submitted to the Government for appropriate action, which is wholly extraneous to the scheme of the Act. An RTI application seeks access to existing information and records, and cannot be equated with a grievance or representation requiring adjudication. Furthermore, the pendency of the matter before any authority does not absolve the PIO of the duty to disclose available records, including file notings and correspondence. The impugned reply, therefore, reflects non-application of mind and amounts to a deemed refusal of information. It is also submitted that the PIO has, in effect, attempted to extend the statutory timeline beyond what is permissible, which is not allowed under the Act. In view of the above, the appellant prays that the Hon’ble Appellate Authority be pleased to direct the PIO to furnish the complete information sought and take appropriate action in accordance with law.